(i) Mukta Arts Private Limited v. ACIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(1), MUMBAI vs. VIACOM18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

…roadcast or exploit the TV program for a\nlonger duration, then it needs to be placed under “capital\nexpenditure”. The Ld. DR in support of above contentions, also\nrelied on the judgment of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mukta Arts\nPvt. Ltd vs. ACIT [2007] 105 ITD 533 (Mum -Trib.), wherein\naccording to Ld. DR, expounded the applicability of Rule 9A of the\nRules and unique characteristics of film production and prescribes\nspecific guidelines for amortizing production costs over multiple\nyears by holding as under:\n1. Rule 9A operates within the framework of the Act and does not override\nstatutory provision…

SHRI VIPUL AMRUTLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 16(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6272/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ Shri Vipul Amrutlal Shah, Acit-16(1) 101/102, A-Wing, R. No. 467, Bharat Ark, Azad Nagar, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Veera Desai Road, M.K Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aecps3110H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani Revenue By: Shri S.K. Poddar (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6272/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14 In Appeal No.Cit(A)-4/It-48/Acit- 16(1)/2016-17 Dated 28.07.2017, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From An Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2013-14. I.T.A. No.6272/Mum/2017

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “F” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6272/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ Shri Vipul Amrutlal Shah, ACIT-16(1) 101/102, A-Wing, R. No. 467, Bharat Ark, Azad Nagar, Aayakar Bhavan, v. Veera Desai Road, M.K Marg, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400053 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AECPS3110H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani Revenue by: Shri S.K. Poddar (CIT-DR) सु…

ALKYL AMINES CHEMICALS LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2897/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Alkyl Amines Chemicals Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Limited, 401-402, Income Tax – Range 10(3) V. Nirman Vypar Kendra, Mumbai. Plot No. 10, Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaaca6783F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…ct only requires that R ITA 2897/Mum/2011 9 & D facility should be approved by the prescribed authority and there is no mandate as to the form of application or approval. The assessee relied on following decisions: (i) Mukta Arts Private Limited v. ACIT , 105 ITD 533(Mum. Trib) (ii) CIT v. Crown Products, 304 ITR 106 (iii) Fenoplast Limited v. ACIT, 82 ITD 178(Hyd Trib) (iv) ACIT v. Tusnial Trading Co. , 61 TTJ 700(Gau. Trib.) (v) ITO v. Meghalaya Bonded Warehouse, 60 TTJ 219(Gau. Trib) The learned CIT(A) called for remand report from the AO to verify genuineness of the claim of the assessee. The remand repo…

RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…tions Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT. The co–ordinate bench following the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v/s Prasad Productions Pvt. Ltd., [1989] 179 ITR 147 (Mad.) and the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Mukta Arts Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2015] 105 ITD 533 (Mum.), held that the advertisement expenditure incurred after certification by Board of Film Censors cannot be included as part of cost of production, hence, provisions of rule 9A, will not apply. It was held, the expenditure incurred in regular course of business has to be allowed under section 37. The ratio laid down by the co–ordinate bench o…