ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act?\"\n3. \"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and\nin law, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following the\ndirections of the ITAT in allowing the claim of cost of production of\nTV serials and programmes as revenue expenditure as against\ndepreciation granted by AO treating

MANJU DUDALA,HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD.

In the result, appeal ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act?" 3. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following the directions of the ITAT in allowing the claim of cost of production of TV serials and programmes as revenue expenditure as against depreciation granted by AO treating

EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act?\"\n3. \"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and\nin law, the CIT(A) was right and justified in following the\ndirections of the ITAT in allowing the claim of cost of production of\nTV serials and programmes as revenue expenditure as against\ndepreciation granted by AO treating

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

68 annexed) 6. The respondent assessee submits that recent decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Income Tax appellate Tribunal and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court support allowability of depreciation on non compete fee in assessee's favour. It is also submitted that the respondent assessee company, was. formed as a result of demerger of M/s.Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., and acquired