Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Sun Tv Network Limited on 10 August, 2022
T.C.A.Nos.854 to 858 of 2016
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.Nos.854 to 858 of 2016
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Non Corporate Circle 20(1)
Chennai 600 034 .. Appellant in all T.C.As
Vs.
M/s.Sun TV Network Limited
Murasoli Maran Towers
73, MRC Nagar Main Road
MRC Nagar, Chennai 600 028
PAN : AADCS 4885 K .. Respondent in all T.C.As
Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,
1961, against the order dated 19.02.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai, in respective I.T.A.Nos.1340/Mds/2015,
1341/Mds/2015, 1577/Mds/2015, 1578/Mds/2015 and 1579/Mds/2015.
For Appellant Mr.M.Swaminathan
in all T.C.As Mrs.V.Pushpa
Standing Counsels
For Respondent Mr.Rahul Balaji
in all T.C.As (undertook to file vakalat)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
T.C.A.Nos.854 to 858 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
These Tax Case Appeals arise from the common order dated 19.02.2016
passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai, in respective
I.T.A.Nos.1340/Mds/2015, 1341/Mds/2015, 1577/Mds/2015, 1578/Mds/2015
and 1579/Mds/2015, relating to the assessment years 2005-06, 2010-11 and
2011-12.
2. By order dated 19.12.2016, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeals on the following substantial questions of law:
T.C.A.Nos.854 and 855 of of 2016:
“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there cannot be
any disallowance towards interest paid on the borrowed funds under
Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not considering, if the loan
funds were mixed up and used for normal business purposes and used for
purchase of exempted income yielding investment are there then Rule
8(D)(2)(ii) is applicable?”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/6
T.C.A.Nos.854 to 858 of 2016
T.C.A.Nos.856, 857 and 858 of of 2016:
“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, 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?
2. 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?
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in dismissing the appeal of the
revenue, holding that the monies received are shown as deferred revenue
by the assessee in the year of receipt and are offered as income in the year
when programme is aired when the fact remains that the assessee is
following Mercantile System of accounting and the impugned revenue
has to be offered only in the current year?”
3. When these matters were taken up for consideration, the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/6
T.C.A.Nos.854 to 858 of 2016
counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee submitted that during the
pendency of these tax case appeals, 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
18.08.2021 and 19.08.2021. The learned counsel has also filed Form-5 to that
effect.
4. 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.
5. In view of the subsequent development, this court is of the opinion that
nothing survives for adjudication in these appeals. Recording the submission so
made by the learned counsel on either side, these Tax Case Appeals stand
disposed of. No costs.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
gya 10.08.2022
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/6
T.C.A.Nos.854 to 858 of 2016
1.The Commissioner of Income Tax
Non Corporate Circle 20(1)
Chennai 600 034
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
'D' Bench, Chennai
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Non Corporate Circle 20(1)
(Previously Media Circle II)
Chennai 600 034
4.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 14
Chennai
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.Nos.854 to 858 of 2016
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
gya
T.C.A.Nos.854 to 858 of 2016
10.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
