ACIT, NCC-10, CHENNAI vs. SUN DIRECT TV PVT LTD, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 206/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 20265 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a DTH service provider, received advance subscription amounts. The Assessing Officer treated these as income in the relevant year, but the CIT(A) deleted the addition, following a previous Tribunal decision. The Revenue appealed this deletion.

What were the issues?

Whether advance subscription amounts received by a DTH service provider should be treated as income in the year of receipt or when services are provided. The applicability of accounting standards and the principle of consistency were also considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE INTURI RAMA RAO & HON’BLE SS VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT

आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection appeal by the Appellant directed against the common order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], dated 28.10.2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.

The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal :

1) The order of the CIT appeals is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case The Ld CIT A erred in law and on facts in in holding that the rights are found incapable of sustained exploitation after the first broadcast and hence considering the principles of consistency and nature of expenditure the same has to be treated as revenue in nature, since the assessee does not derive enduring benefit when filmns once broadcasted are not going out of shelf The Ld CIT A erred in law and on facts in reversing the capitalization of the expenses by the Assessing Officer when as per accounting standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India copy rights in films OR serials are intangible assets and writing off of entire cost of the acquiring such rights at the first broadcast itself on the ground that future revenues are not ascertainable with reasonable accuracy cannot be accepted as it neither adheres to the principles of accounting standards nor Income tax 2) The Ld CIT Appeals erred in law and on facts in law in holding that the monies received are shown as deferred revenue by the assessee in the year of receipt and are offered as income in the year when programme is aired when the fact remains that the assessee is following Mercantile System of accounting and the impugned revenue has to be offered only in the current year 5 The Ld CIT A erred in law and on facts in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee without appreciating the fact that the issue is still pending for adjudication before the Honble High Court of Madras For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing it is prayed that the order of the Ld CIT A be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent is a Company 3. engaged in the business of providing DTH services to the subscribers. The appellant filed the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19 on 12.10.2018 disclosing NIL income after set-off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.45,27,45,223/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by National e- Assessment Centre (hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 11.03.2021 passed u/s.143(3) read with sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act at a total income at Rs.Nil after set-off of Rs.32,25,00,882/- being brought forward business loss. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.31,46,89,693/- being the advance subscription amount received during the Financial Year 2017-18 by holding that subscription amount has been received during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration rejecting the contention of the appellant that the services were not yet provided.

4.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the ld.CIT (A) who vide impugned order deleted the addition following the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos.2162 to 2165/CHNY/2018 for the A.Ys 2011-12 to 2014-15 dated 01.04.2022.

5.

Being aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. Admittedly, there is a delay of 14 days in presenting the appeal before us. The appellant filed a petition seeking the condonation of delay, we are convinced that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for delay, hence, the delay is condoned and we admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

6.

We heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the issue in the present appeal stands covered by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case which is extracted by the ld.CIT(A) at page no.12. Since the decision of ld.CIT(A) in consonance with the decision of the Tribunal, we do not find any reason to take a different view of the respondent.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.206/CHNY/2026 is dismissed. Cross Objection No.9/CHNY/2026 8. Since we have decided the appeal by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue as above, this Cross Objection Appeal filed by the appellant becomes infructuous, accordingly Cross Objection appeal is hereby dismissed.

9.

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; �दनांक / Dated : 29th May, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “सी” ब�च, चे�नई / DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. GANGADHARA Digitally signed by GANGADHARA RAO SALEELA RAO SALEELA Date: 2026.06.03 19:18:31 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →