DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI vs. M/S MAVIS SATCOM LTD, EKATTUTANGAL CHENNAI

: Shri. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT. अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. T.D. Sanjay Kandiar, C.A. सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.10.2023. घोषणा क� तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

These three appeals by the Revenue are arising out of three different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai in 671/21-22 & 970/22-23, dated 31.01.2023, 31.01.2023 and 28.04.2023 respectively for the assessment years 2012- 2013, 2013-2014 & 2011-2012. . The assessments were framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Chennai for the , 407 &739./Mds/2023 :- 2 -: assessment year 2012-2013, u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 28.12.2019, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Chennai for the assessment year 2013-2014, u/s.154 of the Act for the assessment year 2013-2014, dated 30.09.2021 and by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai for the assessment year 2011-2012, u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act vide order 19.12.2018.

First we take up for the 2. assessment year 2011-2012 for adjudication. The only issue in this appeal of the Revenue is as regards to the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance claimed as revenue expenditure on account of purchase of copyright of serials amounting to ₹16,96,83,962/-. For this, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal.

‘’2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenditure claimed for purchase of copyright of serials amounting to Rs.16,96,83,962/- net of depreciation, upholding the assessee's claim as revenue expenditure. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that as per Sec.32(1) (ii), knowhow, patent, copy rights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar , 407 &739./Mds/2023 :- 3 -: nature would be treated as intangible assets and depreciation has to be allowed. 2.2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that the expenditure incurred on copy rights of serial have enduring benefit to the assessee, which can be telecast/retelecast over the years to generate profits and earn advertising revenue. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that Accounting Standard 26 issued by ICAI in relation to intangible assets applies to rights under licensing agreements for items such as motion picture films, video recordings, plays, manuscripts, patents and copyrights. 2.4. The CIT(A) relied on the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for in to 2217 for AYs 2009-10 to 2014- 15, in which ITAT directed to reexamine the case relying on the decision of ITAT Chennai in ITA No.1515 to 1520 dated 18/03/20 14 in the case ACIT Vs Sun TV Network Ltd. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that appeals filed by the department in TCA No.150,162,165 of 2021 against ITAT'S order in ITAT Nos.2215, 2216, 2217 are still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Chennai. Further in the case of Sun TV Network Ltd, the department has filed appeals in TCA Nos.481 to 486 of 2014. The Hon'ble High Court disposed all appeals vide common order dated 10.08.2022 since M/s.Sun TV Net work Ltd availed DTVSV Scheme, thus questions of law are not adjudicated on merits and the issue has not attained finality’’.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is 3. engaged in the business of Satallite Television Broadcasting and filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year 2011-2012 on 29.09.2011 and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide assessment order dated 17.02.2014 after making an addition of ₹1,07,35,403/- being the difference between the cost of copy rights and depreciations allowed on account of purchase of copy rights of films.

, 407 &739./Mds/2023 :- 4 -:

Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and in reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer disallowed the cost of copyrights of serials and programmes claiming it as revenue expenditure amounting to ₹22,62,45,282/- and treated the claim as intangible asset and allowed depreciation at the rate of 25% amounting to ₹5,65,61,321/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure claimed on account of cost of copyright of serials and programmes of ₹16,96,83,961/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

The ld. CIT(A) relying on Tribunal decision in assessee’s own 4. case for earlier assessment years held that expenditure is in the nature of Revenue and allowed the claim by observing as under:-

6.3.4 The revenue agitated the order of the CIT(A)-14, dated 27.04.20 18 before the Hon'ble ITAT. The Hon'ble ITAT in its order dated 08,01.2019 in 2213, 2214, 2215, 2216 & 2217/Chnv/2018 for the A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2014-15 has brought on record the observation of the CIT(A) made in the order dated 27.04.2018 "I had gone through and weighed the contrary observations. It is accepted that the satellite rights purchased in the films give rise to intangible assets and the moot pointy here is whether these assets are capital in nature or revenue. It is no gainsaying that any film broadcasted on television would not give a repeated performance on the revenue from with a very few exceptions. What is concerned here is general trend and not exceptional trend. From a study of the portfolio of film acquired as satellite rights it also can be seen that many of the films may not generate revenue but they are , 407 &739./Mds/2023 :- 5 -: broadcasted during non peak hours basically to fill the content in time. Once a film has been broadcasted on the TV the interest of the viewer would go away and this aspect has been very clearly enunciated from the fact that the films are not given to multiple broadcasting. Coming back to Rule 9B, it is a special categorization given for deduction the cost of production for acquiring the film rights in order to set off the expenditure in the year of exhibition and broadcasting. It is already held above that the provisions of Rule 9B are applicable to this case and hence the assets are also held to be trading assets". 6.3.5 The ITAT after recording the CIT(A)-14 observation in the order passed has held that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(Appeals) and thus, the same are confirmed'. Further, the Hon'ble ITAT while passing the above order has observed the following. "The ld.AR has placed on record a copy of the order of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sun TV Network Ltd., Vs. Department of Income Tax (supra), wherein similar issue had come up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. We find that the issue in hand is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench cited by the Ld. AR'. After observing the above the Hon'ble ITAT has held that 'in view of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed being devoid of merit'. 6.3.6 Thus, from the above orders of the CIT (A) dated 28.03.2013 and the order of the CIT(A)-14 dated 27.04.2018 and consequent decision of the Hon'ble ITAT against the order dated 27.04.2018 by the Revenue, I hold that the issue involved in the present appeal is identical to the facts and circumstances of the decided case, in the Appellant's own case, by both the CIT(A) and Hon'ble ITAT as discussed above are applicable to this case on this issue. 6.3.7 By following the above decision I hereby hold that the action of the A.O. in treating the capital expenditure in respect of cost of copyright which has been claimed as Revenue Expenditure by the Appellant is not sustainable. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.22,62,45,2 82/- made by the A.0. is hereby deleted. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Appellant upon this issue is hereby allowed’’.

, 407 &739./Mds/2023 :- 6 -:

Aggrieved, now the Revenue is in appeal before us.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and 5. circumstances of the case. We noted that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2009- 2010 to 2014-2015 in 2213, 2214, 2215, 2216 & 2217/CHNY/2018 vide order dated 08.01.2019. Since the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue for earlier assessment years, respectfully following the above co-ordinate bench decision, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. Now, we take up ITA No.406/CHNY/2023 for assessment year 6. 2012-2013 for adjudication. The first issue in this appeal of the Revenue is as 7. regards to the order of CIT(A) in quashing assessment framed u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by holding that in the absence of any incriminating material found and seized and un-abated assessment is not legally sustainable. For this, the Revenue has raised the following ground Nos. 2 to 2.3. ‘’2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the action of initiating proceedings u/s.153A of the Act, in the absence of any incriminating material found and seized and effecting disallowance in respect of the issue which has already been taken care of by the order u/s.143(3) of the Act is not legally sustainable. 2.1 The Ld.CIT (A) erred in failing to appreciate that as per the provisions of Sec.153A of the Act, the assessing officer has to mandatorily , 407 &739./Mds/2023 :- 7 -: issue notice u/s.153A of the Act to assess or reassess the total income of each of the six assessment years immediately preceding the year in which search action u/s.132 of the Act was initiated or requisition u/s.132A was made. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that total incone of the assessee cannot be brought to tax if the scope of Section 153A is limited to only undisclosed income on the basis of seized materials. 2.2 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that on the issue of addition to be made in the assessments framed u/s.153A on the basis of seized materials, the SLP filed by the Revenue has been accepted the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs Gahoi Foods Pvt Ltd (117 Taxmann.com 118) and is still pending, thus the issue has not attained finality. 2.3 The ld.CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that there is no express provision in the Act that the additions made in the search assessment can be made only on the basis of seized materials’’.

The brief facts of the case are that assessee had filed its return 8. of income for the relevant assessment year 2012-2013 on 01.10.2012. The Assessing Officer completed the original assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act on 10.03.2015 allowing the expenditure incurred on account of cost of copyrights of serials and programmes amounting to ₹34,53,20,754/- as revenue expenditure and balance of ₹5,22,34,165/- being cost of copyright of films as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation on the same. Subsequently, search and seizure action was conducted u/s.132 of the Act in the cases of M/s. Jazz Cinemas Pvt Ltd, assessee M/s. Mavis Satcom and Shri. J. Vivek on 09.11.2017. The Assessing Officer noted in the assessment order that in the search action, the assessee M/s. Mavis Satcom was also covered and search warrant , 407 &739./Mds/2023 :- 8 -: u/s.132 of the Act was issued in its name. According to the ld. Assessing Officer notices u/s.153A of the Act for six years preceding the previous year in which search operation was conducted was issued to the assessee on 12.09.2019. In response to this notice u/s.153A of the Act, assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-2013 on 21.09.2019. The ld. Assessing Officer while completing the assessment disallowed the cost of movie right by holding the same as Revenue in nature and it is an intangible asset by observering as under:-

‘’6. As, mentioned above the cost of the movie right is an intangible asset and the eligible depreciation @ 25% to be allowed the depreciation is worked out to Rs.8,63,30,189/-. After deducting the depreciation the balance amount of Rs.25,89,90,565/- (39,75,54,919- 5,22,34,165- 8,63,30,189) disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee’’.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

The ld. CIT(A) quashed the assessment by holding that no 9. incriminating materials were found and seized warranting assessment of expenditure of ₹34,53,20,754/- which was already declared by the assessee in its accounts and original assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 10.03.2015. The ld. CIT(A) finally held as under:-

, 407 &739./Mds/2023 :- 9 -:

6.2.1.1 In respect of this ground, the contention of the Appellant is that during the course of search conducted in the case of Appellant no incriminating materials were found or seized. In view of this, it has been claimed that there is no justification on the part of the A.O. to initiate proceedings u/s 153A and re assessing the issue which has already been considered in the original Assessment Order passed ws 143(3) of the Act. On account of this, it has been pleaded that the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is beyond the provisions of section 153A of the Act. 6.2.1.2 The background of the issue is that the Appellant company has filed its Return of Income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 01.10.2012 by admitting a total income of Rs.2,26,37,990/-. The assessee in the Profit & Loss Account has claimed a sum of Rs.39,75,54,9 19/- as revenue expenditure. Out of this amount a sum of Rs.5,22,34, 1 6S/- and Rs.34,53,20,754/- represents cost of copyrights of films and copyrights of serials and programs respectively. 6.2.1.3 The A.O. while completing the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 10.03.2015 allowed the cost of copyrights of Serials and Programmes amounting Rs.34,53,20,754/- as revenue expenditure and considered the amount of Rs.5,22,34, 1 65/- being the cost of copyright of films as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation and disallowed a sum of Rs.3,15,20,803/- 6.2.1.4 The A.O while passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153(A) of the Act on 28.12.2019 has dealt the issue once again. Here, the A.O out of Rs.34,53,20,754/- which has been allowed in the earlier order passed and reconsidered the issue and treated the amount as capital expenditure and allowed depreciation @ 25% upon it amounting Rs.8,63,33,189/- and disallowed the balance amount of Rs.25,89,90,565/-. 6.2.1.5 The original assessment was passed w/s 143(3) of the Act on 10.03.2015. A search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of the Appellant on 09.11.2017, much after the completion of assessment. Obviously, on the date of search, no assessment proceedings are pending for the A.Y. 2012 13. The observation of the A.O. made in the Assessment Order that “the pending proceedings got abated and is clubbed in this order' is contrary to the facts. 6.2.1.6 In the original order passed, u/s 143(3) of the Act and the order passed u/s 153A of the Act, the issue revolves relating to whether the cost of copyright of the film/teleserial purchased amounts to capital receipt or revenue receipt. In the original order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the A.O. has considered part of the amount as revenue receipt and part of the amount as a capital expenditure. The capital expenditure considered was disallowed. No depreciation was allowed. However, the A.0. while passing the order w/s 153A, has again examined the expenditure and treated the same as capital expenditure which was allowed earlier as a revenue expenditure and allowed only depreciation upon it.

, 407 &739./Mds/2023 :- 10 -:

6.2.1.7 No doubt, during the course of search, no incriminating materials were found and seized warranting to make any new findings upon the issue which has already been decided. This is clear from the order passed by the A.0. that the A.O has not referred or relied upon any seized material to strengthen the issue whether the cost of copyright of the film/tele-serial purchased amount to capital receipt or revenue receipt. 6.2.1.8 The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Mohan Breweries & Distilleries P. Ltd. in tax appeal no. 570 of 2008 has held in the order dated 01.02.2017, that the addition was deleted on the ground that no incriminating material was found in the course of search to justify the addition '. 6.2.1.9 Further the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of ACIT v. G. Tech Stone Ltd. in to 583/Chny/2018 & ITA No. 3053/Chny/2017 & 537 to 539/Chny/2018 dated 05.04.2022 has observed that Therefore on the given facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which has deleted the impugned additions/disallowances on the ground that there was no incriminating material found from the assessee during the course of search operations. Concurring with the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order, we dismiss the appeal'. 6.2.1.10 Thus, by following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and ITAT, I hereby hold that the action of the A.O. to initiate the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act, in the absence of any incriminating material found and seized, and making a finding and effecting disallowance in respect of the issue which has already been taken care of while passing the order w/s 143(3) of the Act, is not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the Grounds of Appeal raised by the Appellant upon the legality of the initiation of proceedings w/s 153A of the Act are hereby treated as allowed.

Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before us. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and 10. circumstances of the case. Before us, the ld. CIT-DR could not show us any evidence whether there is any incriminating evidence found during the course of search nor he could not establish before us any incriminating evidence was with him nor with the Assessing Officer. It is clear that the ld. Assessing Officer in his original assessment order dated 10.03.2015 had allowed the cost of copyrights of serials and programmes and treated 407 &739./Mds/2023 :- 11 -: the same as revenue expenditure. Since there is no incriminating evidence available, the ld. CIT(A) had rightly quashed the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. Even otherwise the issue stand covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P)Ltd , 454 ITR 212, wherein it was held as under:- ‘’14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs.

The facts of the above case are that there is no incriminating materials found, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 407 &739./Mds/2023 :- 12 -: case of Abhisar Buildwell (P)Ltd (supra), we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue.

The second issue in this appeal is as regards to the order of 11. the ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of expenditure claimed for purchase of copyright of serials amounting to ₹25,89,90,565/-. Since we have already adjudicated the issue of jurisdiction and 12. held that there is no discriminating material available with the Assessing Officer, the assessment framed u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act is bad in law, we do not go into merits of the case. Moreover, this issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in for assessment year 2011-12 in preceding para 5. this ground of the Revenue is also dismissed. Now, we take up 13. 2013-2014 for adjudication. The only issue in this appeal of the Revenue is as 14. regards to the order of CIT(A) allowing the MAT credit to the assessee to the tune of ₹2,10,84,080/- for the relevant assessment year 2013-2014. For this, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:-

, 407 &739./Mds/2023 :- 13 -:

‘’2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenditure claimed for purchase of copyright of serials amounting to Rs.16,96,83,962/- net of depreciation, upholding the assessee's claim as revenue expenditure. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that as per Sec.32(1) (ii), knowhow, patent, copy rights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature would be treated as intangible assets and depreciation has to be allowed. 2.2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that the expenditure incurred on copy rights of serial have enduring benefit to the assessee, which can be telecast/retelecast over the years to generate profits and earn advertising revenue. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that Accounting Standard 26 issued by ICAI in relation to intangible assets applies to rights under licensing agreements for items such as motion picture films, video recordings, plays, manuscripts, patents and copyrights. 2.4. The CIT(A) relied on the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for in to 2217 for AYs 2009-10 to 2014-15, in which ITAT directed to reexamine the case relying on the decision of ITAT Chennai in ITA No.1515 to 1520 dated 18/03/20 14 in the case ACIT Vs Sun TV Network Ltd. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that appeals filed by the department in TCA No.150,162,165 of 2021 against ITAT'S order in ITAT Nos.2215, 2216, 2217 are still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Chennai. Further in the case of Sun TV Network Ltd, the department has filed appeals in TCA Nos.481 to 486 of 2014. The Hon'ble High Court disposed all appeals vide common order dated 10.08.2022 since M/s.Sun TV Net work Ltd availed DTVSV Scheme, thus questions of law are not adjudicated on merits and the issue has not attained finality’’.

The brief facts of the case are that assessee company has 15. claimed MAT credit for an amount of ₹2,10,84,080/- for the relevant assessment year 2013-2014 u/s. 115JB of the Act while computing taxable income. The assessee claimed MAT credit which pertains to assessment year 2012-2013, during which the assessee company paid tax u/s.115JB of the Act. We noted that on account of the additions made in the , 407 &739./Mds/2023 :- 14 -: assessment year 2012-2013 as per the assessment order passed u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2019, the Assessing Officer was of the view that tax calculated under the normal rates had become higher than the tax calculated under MAT and accordingly, the Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee is not entitled for MAT credit to be set off for the assessment year 2013-2014 and hence he opted to rectify the mistake by issuance of notice u/s.154 of the Act on 28.12.2019. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed rectification order u/s.154 of the Act on 30.09.2021. In this rectification order passed u/s.154 of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed MAT credit claimed u/s.115JAA of the Act to the tune of ₹2,10,84,080/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

The ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee 16. allowed the MAT credit by observing in para 6.3 to 6.3.5 as under:-

‘’6.3.4 The revenue agitated the order of the CIT(A)-14, dated 27.04.20 18 before the Hon'ble ITAT. The Hon'ble ITAT in its order dated 08,01.2019 in 2213, 2214, 2215, 2216 & 2217/Chnv/2018 for the A.Y.s 2009-10 to 2014-15 has brought on record the observation of the CIT(A) made in the order dated 27.04.2018 "I had gone through and weighed the contrary observations. It is accepted that the satellite rights purchased in the films give rise to intangible assets and the moot pointy here is whether these assets are capital in nature or revenue. It is no gainsaying that any film broadcasted on television would not give a repeated performance on the revenue from with a very few exceptions. What is concerned here is general trend and not exceptional trend. From a study of the portfolio of film acquired as satellite rights it also can be seen that many of the films may not generate revenue but they , 407 &739./Mds/2023 :- 15 -: are broadcasted during non peak hours basically to fill the content in time. Once a film has been broadcasted on the TV the interest of the viewer would go away and this aspect has been very clearly enunciated from the fact that the films are not given to multiple broadcasting. Coming back to Rule 9B, it is a special categorization given for deduction the cost of production for acquiring the film rights in order to set off the expenditure in the year of exhibition and broadcasting. It is already held above that the provisions of Rule 9B are applicable to this case and hence the assets are also held to be trading assets". 6.3.5 The ITAT after recording the CIT(A)-14 observation in the order passed has held that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(Appeals) and thus, the same are confirmed'. Further, the Hon'ble ITAT while passing the above order has observed the following. "The ld.AR has placed on record a copy of the order of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sun TV Network Ltd., Vs. Department of Income Tax (supra), wherein similar issue had come up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. We find that the issue in hand is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench cited by the Ld. AR'. After observing the above the Hon'ble ITAT has held that 'in view of the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed being devoid of merit'. 6.3.6 Thus, from the above orders of the CIT (A) dated 28.03.2013 and the order of the CIT(A)-14 dated 27.04.2018 and consequent decision of the Hon'ble ITAT against the order dated 27.04.2018 by the Revenue, I hold that the issue involved in the present appeal is identical to the facts and circumstances of the decided case, in the Appellant's own case, by both the CIT(A) and Hon'ble ITAT as discussed above are applicable to this case on this issue. 6.3.7 By following the above decision I hereby hold that the action of the A.O. in treating the capital expenditure in respect of cost of copyright which has been claimed as Revenue Expenditure by the Appellant is not sustainable. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.22,62,45,2 82/- made by the A.0. is hereby deleted. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Appellant upon this issue is hereby allowed’’.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and 17. circumstances of the case. At the time of hearing, the ld. CIT- DR could not controvert the submissions of the assessee and the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Hence we direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the MAT , 407 &739./Mds/2023 :- 16 -: credit for which the ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer as noted above. We find infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.

To summarize the result, the appeals filed by the Department in 18. ITAs 406, 407 & 739/CHNY/2023 for assessment years 2012-2013, 2013- 2014 & 2011-2012 stand dismissed.

Order pronounced on 18th day of October, 2023, at Chennai.