Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Geeva Films - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Reference No. 34 of 1977
Judge
Reported in[1983]141ITR632(Ker)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 256(1) and 263
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentGeeva Films
Appellant Advocate P.K. Raveendranatha Menon, Adv.
Respondent Advocate K.S. Paripoornan and; G. Sivarajan, Advs.
Excerpt:
- .....and december 1, 1971, respectively. as they were released in the latter half of the accounting year, the commissioner held that the amortisation to be allowed should be restricted to 50%. to this extent he was of the opinion that the order of the ito was prejudicial to the revenue and required modification. the officer was directed to modify his order accordingly. on appeal by the assessee, the tribunal allowed the appeal, reversed the order of the commissioner and restored that of the ito. it referred the question of law under section 256(1) of the act.3. the question of law has been directly covered in favour of the assessee by the recent judgment in itr no. 56 of 1976 (cit v. b.m. edward, india sea foods, cochin : [1979]119itr334(ker) ). following the said judgment, we answer the.....
Judgment:

Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.

1. This is a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, at the instance of the Revenue. The question referred for our opinion is :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes existing at the beginning of the assessment year will be applicable and the assessee would be entitled to 100% amortisation for the assessment and the subsequent modification of the circular will have no relevance '

2. The assessment year is 1972-73. The assessee is doing business in the distribution of films. It had purchased prints of two films during the year along with the additional copies, for a total cost of Rs. 4.5 lakhs on the films and Rs. 1,23,002 on the additional prints. It claimed deduction for these amounts while computing the income from business. The deduction was allowed by the ITO. But on a revision under Section 263 of the I.T. Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax set aside the officer's order. He pointed out that the two films concerned in the assessment were released on October 17, 1971, and December 1, 1971, respectively. As they were released in the latter half of the accounting year, the Commissioner held that the amortisation to be allowed should be restricted to 50%. To this extent he was of the opinion that the order of the ITO was prejudicial to the Revenue and required modification. The officer was directed to modify his order accordingly. On appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, reversed the order of the Commissioner and restored that of the ITO. It referred the question of law under Section 256(1) of the Act.

3. The question of law has been directly covered in favour of the assessee by the recent judgment in ITR No. 56 of 1976 (CIT v. B.M. Edward, India Sea Foods, Cochin : [1979]119ITR334(Ker) ). Following the said judgment, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

4. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the court will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //