TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing a common order dated 23.10.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] dismissing the respective appeals preferred by the Revenue and allowing the cross objections filed by the respondent [Assessee] in the said appeals. 2. The details of the appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections in reference to the appeals preferred by the Assessee, which were disposed of by the learned ITAT by the impugned order, are set out below:- Sr. No. ITA No. ITA No. (ITAT) Cross Objection No. CIT(A) No. AY 1 113/2025 6648/Del/2013 222/Del/2018 55/13-14 2008-09 2 115/2025 1578/Del/2014 223/Del/2018 414/11-12 2009-10 3 116/2025 1270/Del/2015 307/De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; therefore, was liable to be included in the Assessee's income chargeable to tax. 6. The AO noted that- (i) the Assessee was not the owner of the multiplexes and was operating multiplexes from lease hold properties; (ii) the depreciation on the said properties was claimed by the owners; (iii) the subsidies received was not directly related to any capital asset or any capital outlay made by the Assessee; (iv) the exemption from payment of entertainment tax was available only after the commencement operation of the multiplexes; (v) the exemption was granted to the Assessee subject to the condition that the multiplexes would have to run for a number of years fixed by the respective State Governm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on sale of cinema tickets towards subsidy limited to particular amount in particular years. The case of assessee is that based on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugar and Chemicals reported in [2008] 306 ITR 392 as in AY 2006-07 & 2007-08, in this year also the assessee claimed the said amount of ETS of Rs. 16,73,37,497/-forming part of its total turnover as capital receipt not liable to tax. In AY 2006-07 ETS involved was in respect of one Multiplex involving E tax subsidy scheme in the state of Uttar Pradesh and in AY 2007-08 ETS involved was in respect of SIX Multiplexes involving E-tax subsidy scheme in the state of Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. In this year ETS claim of Rs. 16,73....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal vide its orders dated 20.4.2012 and 07.1 1.2023 respectively. Thus, considering this issue as no more res-Integra the departmental grounds on this issue have no substance." 10. At this stage, it is material to note that although there are other grounds raised by the Revenue including the challenge to the deletion of lease hold improvement expenses capitalised in the books of Assessee, and the deletion of the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act [in respect of the AY 2010-11]; the learned counsel for the Revenue has not pressed any such issues in the present appeals. 11. As is apparent from the above extract of the impugned order, the learned ITAT rejected the appeals preferred by the Revenue by referring to the deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e highly capital intensive and their gestation period is quite long and therefore, they need Government support in the form of incentives qua entertainment duty. It was also added that government with a view to commemorate the birth centenary of late Shri V. Shantaram decided to grant concession in entertainment duty to Multiplex Theatre Complexes to promote construction of new cinema houses in the State. The aforesaid object is clear and unequivocal. The object of the grant of the subsidy was in order that persons come forward to construct Multiplex Theatre Complexes, the idea being that exemption from entertainment duty for a period of three years and partial remission for a period of two years should go towards helping the indus....