ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SUN TV NETWORK LIMITED, CHENNAI

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-14,Chennai dated 24.03.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13.

The first issue arises for consideration is addition made by the Assessing Officer towards purchase of movies, programme production expenses, amortization of film and Broadcast rights, consumables and Media expenses at `117.98 crores.

We have heard the submissions of Mr.Sailendra Mamidi, ld. Departmental Representative and Mr.N.Devanathan ld. Authorised Representative of assessee. It is brought to notice of the Bench that an identical issue came before this Tribunal for assessment year 2011-12 in assessee's own case in & 1341/Mds./2015. This Tribunal after considering the earlier decision in assessee's own case in ITA Nos.1515 to 1520/Mds./2013 for assessment years 2004-05 to 2009-10 vide order dated 31.10.2013 found that the similar expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be allowed as a revenue expenditure. The ld. CIT(A) in fact, allowed the claim of assessee by placing reliance on the Order of Tribunal for the earlier assessment years 2004-05 to 2009-10 vide order dated 31.10.2013.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. This issue also subject matter of discussion before this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment years 2004-05 to 2009-10 vide order dated 31.10.2013 in to 1520/Mds./2013. This Tribunal specifically found that the monies received are shown as deferred revenue in the year of receipt and are offered as income in the year when programme is aired. The Ld.CIT(A), in fact followed the Order of Tribunal in assessee's own case vide order dated 31.10.2013. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the order of Ld.CIT(A) is confirmed in the departmental appeal.

The ld.D.R submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of assessee in the year in which the tax was deducted. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that recipient of the amount has already paid the tax, therefore, it is to be allowed during this year. The fact remains is that the assessee has not deducted the tax. It is not in dispute that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax. When the recipient has paid the money, there may not be any disallowance during the year under consideration. In case, the recipient has not paid the tax during the ITA No.1309/Mds./2017 :- 4 -:

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.