THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S.SUNTV NETWORK LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the appeal without adjudicating on the merits of the substantial questions of law. This was due to a subsequent development where the assessee availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee filed necessary declarations, which were accepted by the Income Tax Department, and an order for full and final settlement of tax arrears was issued on 19.08.2021. Both the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Standing Counsels for the Revenue fairly conceded to this development. Consequently, the Court was of the opinion that nothing survived for adjudication in the appeal. The appeal was disposed of based on the submissions made by both sides, and no costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the three questions of law were not reviewed or upheld by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) filed a Tax Case Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) 'A' Bench, Chennai. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2013-14 and concerns the treatment of expenses related to acquiring rights in films/serials. The ITAT had ruled in favor of the assessee, M/s. Sun TV Network Limited (Respondent), holding that such rights were revenue in nature and not capital assets. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the assessee availed the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and filed necessary declarations, which were accepted, leading to a full and final settlement of tax arrears.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide three substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was right in holding that rights, incapable of sustained exploitation after the first broadcast and not providing enduring benefit, are revenue in nature, considering principles of consistency and the nature of expenditure. 2. Whether the ITAT was right in reversing the capitalization of expenses by the Assessing Officer, when copyrights in films/serials are intangible assets under accounting standards, and writing off the entire cost at the first broadcast due to unascertainable future revenues is contrary to accounting standards and income tax law. 3. Whether the ITAT was right in holding that monies received as deferred revenue or offered as income when the program is aired, when the assessee follows a system of accounting and the revenue should be offered in the current year. The Assessee argued that the rights were revenue in nature as they did not provide enduring benefit and were not capable of sustained exploitation after the first broadcast. The Revenue contended that copyrights are intangible assets, and their immediate write-off was contrary to accounting standards and income tax law, and that revenue should be offered in the current year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.276 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 10.08.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No.276 of 2019 The Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle 20(1) Chennai 600 034
.. Appellant Vs. M/s.Sun TV Network Limited 73, MRC Nagar Main Road MRC Nagar, Sindhur Towers Chennai 600 028 PAN : AADCS 4885 K
.. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1243/Chny/2018. For Appellant Mr.M.Swaminathan Mrs.V.Pushpa Standing Counsels For Respondent Mr.Rahul Balaji (undertook to file vakalat) 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.276 of 2019 J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This Tax Case Appeal arises from the order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No. 1243/Chny/2018, relating to the assessment year 2013-14, raising the following substantial questions of law : “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right 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 films once broadcasted are not going out of shelf? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in reversing the capitalization of the expenses by the Assessing Officer when the fact remains that as per accounting standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, copy rights in films/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 law? 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.276 of 2019 (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the monies received are shown as deferred revenue by the assessee in the year of receipt and or offered as income in the year when programme is aired when the fact remains that the assessee is following system of accounting and the impugned revenue as to be offered in the current year?" 2. When this matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee submitted that during the pendency of this tax case appeal, the assessee has availed the benefit conferred under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and filed necessary declarations, which were accepted and Form-5/order for full and final settlement of tax arrears, was also issued by the Income tax department, on 19.08.2021. The learned counsel has also filed Form-5 dated 19.08.2021 to that effect. 3. The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee has also been fairly conceded by the learned Standing Counsels appearing for the appellant/ Revenue. 4. In view of the subsequent development, this court is of the opinion that 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.276 of 2019 nothing survives for adjudication in this appeal. Recording the submission so made by the learned counsel on either side, this Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] gya 10.08.2022
To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle 20(1) Chennai 600 034 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 14 Chennai R. MAHADEVAN, J. AND 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.276 of 2019 MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. gya T.C.A.No.276 of 2019 10.08.2022 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
More judgments on Section 260-A
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026