1984 (9) TMI 85

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ilm under r. 9A(1). 2. The assessee, an individual, and during the accounting year completed and released a feature film by name "Veeru Ustad". The books of account showed the total cost of be Rs. 20,05,424. During the accounting year concerned, the assessee had sold the distribution rights in respect of all the territories excepting the territories of Bombay, A. P. and Mysore. According to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se circumstances there was no case for making an addition. 5. The CIT (A) had also considered an alternative ground. In the alternative ground, he found that the total cost of production was not Rs. 20,05,424 but Rs. 14,51,930. On that basis also, there could be no addition. 6. The department, has now come on appeal. Initially, Shri Ruhela, ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly, Bombay area was sold only for Rs. 40,000. Thus, the assessee had incurred a loss in this deal. He submitted that the provisions of r.9A(9) would cover such cases and, therefore, the claim was properly allowed by the CIT (A). In respect of the alternative submission, he pointed out that all the facts were before the ITO and no new evidence was led. 7. We have considered the facts of the case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the subsequent year. Sub-r. (6) provided that the balance of the cost of production should be carried forward to the next year and allowed as a deduction in that year. The department has also understood that there was a case for valuation of such unsold distribution areas. It will, therefore, not open for us, at least in this case, to hold that such a valuation is not possible. 8. Once we co....