Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Sun Tv Network Limited on 10 August, 2022
T.C.A.Nos.481 to 486 of 2014
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.481 to 486 of 2014
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Media Circle
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 : AADCS4885K .. Respondent in all T.C.As
Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act,
1961, against the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai, in respective I.T.A.Nos.1515 to 1520/Mds/2013.
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.481 to 486 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
These Tax Case Appeals arise from the common order dated 31.10.2013
passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai, in respective
I.T.A.Nos.1515 to 1520/Mds/2013, relating to the assessment years 2004-05 to
2009-10.
2. By order dated 09.09.2014, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeals on the following substantial questions of law:
“ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 & 2005-06:
1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the
reopening u/s.147 is invalid?
2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that reopening is done on
the basis of mere change of opinion and dismissed the appeal of the
Revenue when the Assessing officer has not formed any opinion?
ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2009-10:
3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the copyrights
in film are found incapable of exploitation after the first broadcast hence
treated the expenditure as revenue expenditure?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/6
T.C.A.Nos.481 to 486 of 2014
4) Whether on the facts ond in the circumstances of the case the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in reversing the capitalisation
of the copyrights in film/serials expenses when the fact remains that
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India as per accounting standards
treat the same as intangible asset?
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08:
5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition when
the assessee is not in the business purchase and sale of films, the claim of
advances to producers of movies for purchase of rights does not arise and
thus the assessee's claim is not acceptable is no income has been offered
as per the provision of Section 36(2)?
6) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of
advances written off on the cost of movie rights, when the assessing
officer treated the copyrights of movie as intangible assets then advance
written off towards the same should also be treated as capital
expenditure?
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 & 2009-10:
7) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that time slot
income is offered in the year of broadcasting the programme without
noting that the bills are raised and the monies are received during the
current year and the assessee is following the mercantile system of
accounting, hence the income should be offered in the current year?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/6
T.C.A.Nos.481 to 486 of 2014
8) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the monies
received are shown as deferred revenue by the assessee in the year of
receipt and it is offered as income in the year when the programme is
aired without noting that the assessee is following the mercantile system
and the impugned revenue has to be offered only in the current year?”
3. When these matters were taken up for consideration, the learned
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/6
T.C.A.Nos.481 to 486 of 2014
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
1.The Commissioner of Income Tax
Media Circle
Chennai 600 034
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
'A' Bench, Chennai
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Media Circle-II
Chennai 600 034
4.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VI
Chennai
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.Nos.481 to 486 of 2014
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
gya
T.C.A.Nos.481 to 486 of 2014
10.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
