EL-ZEE TELEVISION P LTD, v. DY CIT RG 11(C),

ITA 4192/MUM/2003 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 419219914 RSA 2003
Assessee PAN AAACE2775K
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4192/MUM/2003
Duration Of Justice 7 year(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant EL-ZEE TELEVISION P LTD,
Respondent DY CIT RG 11(C),
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted L
Tribunal Order Date 31-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 19-10-2009
Next Hearing Date 19-10-2009
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 29-05-2003
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH L MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAG HAVAN (JM) ITA NOS. 4299 & 4300/MUM/2003 ASSESSMENT YEARS-1998-99 & 1999-2000 THE DY. CIT RANGE 11(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 VS. M/S. ELZEE TELEVISION PVT. LTD. CONTINENTAL BLDG. 135 DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD WORLI MUMBAI-400 018 PAN-AAACE 2775K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 3197/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2000-01 THE DY. CIT RANGE 11(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 VS. M/S. ELZEE TELEVISION PVT. LTD. CONTINENTAL BLDG. 135 DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD WORLI MUMBAI-400 018 PAN-AAACE 2775K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 6769/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2001-02 THE DY. CIT RANGE 11(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 VS. M/S. ELZEE TELEVISION PVT. LTD. CONTINENTAL BLDG. 135 DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD WORLI MUMBAI-400 018 PAN-AAACE 2775K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ELZEE TELEVISION LTD. 2 ITA NOS. 4192 & 4193/MUM/2003 ASSESSMENT YEARS-1998-99 & 1999-2000 M/S. ELZEE TELEVISION PVT. LTD. CONTINENTAL BLDG. 135 DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD WORLI MUMBAI-400 018 PAN-AAACE 2775K VS. THE DY. CIT RANGE 11(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K. SHIVARAM SHRI M.G. BHANDARI DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI NARENDER SINGH O R D E R PER BENCH THESE APPEALS AND CROSS APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY T HE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE L D. CIT(A). SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS WE HEA RD THESE APPEALS TOGETHER AND PREFERRED TO ADJUDICATE THEM BY THE SI NGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TV P ROGRAMME PRODUCER AND PROGRAMME SUPPLIER TO ASIA TODAY LTD F OR ZEE CINEMA CHANNEL AS PER PROGRAMME SUPPLY AGREEMENT. THE ASS ESSEE IS SUBSCRIPTION AGENT OF PAY TV CHANNEL ZEE CINEMA U NDER LICENCE AGREEMENT DT. 10.1.1995. 3. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED FOLLOWING EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY WHICH WERE DISALLOWED BY THE LD. AO. 1) FIRST ZEE CINE AWARD CEREMONY EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TELECAST ON ZEE CHANNELS. THESE E XPENSES ELZEE TELEVISION LTD. 3 ARE INCURRED TO PROMOTE CINEMA CHANNEL AND POPULARI ZE WITH CABLE OPERATORS. THE LD. AO MADE ADDITION U/S . 92 TAKING PROFIT OF 10% ON THE EXPENSES AS EXPORT VALU E OF THIS PROGRAMME TO BE CHARGED FROM ATL. 2) CABLE RIGHT PROTECTION FEES THERE HAS BEEN DI SPUTES WHETHER SATELLITE RIGHT INCLUDES CABLE RIGHTS AND B ROADCAST ON SATELLITE CAN BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGH CABLE WITHO UT CABLE RIGHTS ETC. AND THE DISPUTE GONE IN THE COURT OF LA W AND CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE COMPANYS DIRECTORS AND ITS FRANCHISEES CABLE OPERATORS WHICH EFFECTS THE BUSIN ESS HENCE THE ASSESSEE TAKEN THE PROTECTION FROM THE CA BLE RIGHT HOLDER FOR REDISTRIBUTION IN INDIA FOR A FEES. IT IS NOTED THAT ATL THE BROADCASTER HAS SATELLITE TELECAST RIGHT. HENCE TO SAFE GUARD ITS BUSINESS INTEREST ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENSES AS FEES PAID FOR CABLE RIGHT PROTECTION WITHOUT ACQ UIRING ANY RIGHTS. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND CONTENTIONS OF THE AO. M/S. AMBIANCE SPACE SELLERS LTD HAS AMALGAMATED WITH M/S. ZEE TELE FILMS LTD (ZTL) W.E. F. 1.4.1997 AS PER SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION APPROVED BY THE ORDER DT. 8.10.1998 FROM HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMB AY. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE THE MEMORANDUMO OF UNDERSTAND ING (MOU) BETWEEN ESSEL VISION A DIVISIONS OF ASSL AND THE APPELLANT. THE MOU IS EFFECTIVE FROM 1.4.1997. TH E APPELLANT HAD TO INTIMATE ASSL THE LIST OF MOVIES IN ADVANCE FOR WHICH PROTECTION WAS SOUGHT. THE ASSL UNDERTOOK TO PROVIDE/ARRANGE THE CABLE PROTECTION TO ALL CABLE O PERATORS WHO GOT AUTHORIZATION FROM THE APPELLANT FOR REDIST RIBUTION OF ENCRYPTED SIGNALS AND TO INDEMNIFY ALL CABLE OPERAT ORS FROM ALL COST/CLAIMS ARISING FROM COPY RIGHT ACT. THE P ROTECTION COMMITMENT IS VALID FOR FILMS TELECAST ON ZEE CINEM A AND DISTRIBUTED BY CABLE OPERATOR UNDER AN AGREEMENT WI TH THE APPELLANT. THE PROTECTION IS VALID FOR THE FINANCI AL YEAR IN WHICH IT IS GIVEN AND CANNOT BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE FOLLOWING YEAR. HOWEVER FOR REPEAT TELECAST OF A MOVIE WITHIN THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR NO SEPARATE CHARGE WAS TO B E LEVIED. THE PAYMENT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT FOR ACQUIRING ANY EVER LASTING OR LONG TERM RIGHT BUT FOR SMOOTH RUNNING OF BUSINESS TO AVOID ANY COMPLICATIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL DETRIMENTAL EFF ECTS ON THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT BY THE INFRINGEMENT O F COPY RIGHTS ACT. THE PAYMENT IS NOT MADE TO THE LICENSO R HOLDING ELZEE TELEVISION LTD. 4 SATELLITE RIGHTS. THE PAYMENT IS ANALOGOUS TO THE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID FOR A TERM INSURANCE FOR A LIMITED PUR POSE AND FOR A LIMITED PERIOD. I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH T HE AO THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS CAPITAL IN NATURE OR THE VALUE O F THE RIGHTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE CLOSING STOCK. T HEREFORE ADDITION IS DELETED. 5. WITH RESPECT TO ZEE CINEMA AWARDS THE LD. CIT(A ) HELD AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT A ND CONTENTIONS OF THE AO. AS PER AGREEMENT WITH M/S. ATL THE APPELLANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROMOTION OF ZEE CINEM A CHANNEL IN INDIA. THE ZCA EVENT WAS ORGANIZED TO ANNOUNCE T O PUBLIC THAT APPELLANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF ZEE CINEMA THROUGH CABLE NET WORK. AS PER THE ARRANGEMENT TH E SPONSOR ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH ATL AS PER WHICH ATL AGREED TO AIR THE PROGRAMME ON THEIR ZEE TV CHANNEL. THER EFORE ADVERTISEMENT REVENUE FROM THE SPONSOR WENT TO THE ATL. THE APPELLANT ORGANIZED THE EVENT. THE ACTION OF THE A PPELLANT MAY BE COMPARED TO THE ADVERTISEMENT OF A MOVIE BY A THEATRE RUNNING THE MOVIE WITH THE HOPE THAT THE ADVERTISEM ENT OF MOVIE SHALL INCREASE THE TURNOVER OF THEATRE. ANOT HER EXAMPLE CAN BE THE ADVERTISEMENT OF A MAIN PRODUCT BY THE A NCILLARY SUPPLIER OR A DEALER WITH AN EYE ON INCREASING THE TURNOVER BY HIGH LIGHTING THE PRODUCT. THE COURTS ARE UNANIMOU S IN VIEW THAT IF BY ADVERTISING ONES PRODUCTS THE THIRD PA RTY IS ALSO BENEFITTED IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT THE EXPENDIT URE WAS INCURRED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIRD PARTY. THE EVENT IN QUESTION IS NOT THE KIND OF PROGRAMME S WHICH ARE SUPPLIED BY THE APPELLANT TO ATL WHICH AR E IN THE FORM OF SERIALS AND MOVIES. THE AGREEMENT DT. 1.4. 1997 WHICH IS PROGRAMME SUPPLY AGREEMENT HAS SINCE BEEN DISCONTINUED AND THE APPELLANT IS FREE TO SUPPLY PR OGRAMMES TO ANY CHANNEL AND AT THE SAME TIME ATL IS ALSO FRE E TO ACQUIRE PROGRAMMES FROM OTHER PROGRAMME SUPPLIERS. IT WAS ECONOMICAL TO BEAM THE PROGRAMME THROUGH ATL AS OTH ER BROADCASTER LIKE STAR ETC. WOULD HAVE EITHER REFUSE D THE TELECAST OR WOULD HAVE CHARGED THE APPELLANT SUBSTA NTIAL AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE AD-REVENUE. ITA NOS. 4299 & 4300/M/03 A.YRS 1998-99 & 1999-2 000- REVENUES APPEAL ELZEE TELEVISION LTD. 5 6. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED TWO COMMON GROUNDS IN THE SE APPEALS WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE TOWARDS CABLE RIGHT PROTECTION FEES. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION MADE BEING EXPENSES IN ZEE CINEMA AWARDS. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFOR E US A BULKY PAPER BOOK CONTAINING COPIES OF (1) CONNECTING AGREEMENTS OF ESSEL VISION : (I) TAXCON INVESTMENTS (II) MOHAN MOVIES (III) B N U & CO WITH ANNEXURE 2) PROGRAMME SUPPLY AGREEMENT BETWEEN ASIA TODAY LT D. AND EL-ZEE TELEVISION PVT. LTD. 3) MOU DT. 1.4.1997 BETWEEN EL-ZEE AND ASSL. 4) LICENCE AGREEMENT DT. 1 ST DAY OF JANUARY 1995 WITH ATL AND EL-ZEE TELEVISION PVT. LTD. 5) AGREEMENT DT. 2 ND DAY OF FEB. BETWEEN EL-ZEE TELEVISION PVT. LTD. AND ASIA TODAY LTD. AND ALSO OTHER RELEVANT PAPERS FOR THE PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES BEFORE US. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI NARENDE R SINGH SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE MADE A DE TAILED ANALYSIS OF THE AGREEMENTS BEFORE DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCO UNT OF CABLE RIGHT PROTECTION FEES AND ALSO WITH RESPECT TO ZEE CINEM A AWARDS. THE FACTS OF THE MOU DT. 1.4.1997 AND THE LICENCE AGREEMENT D T. 01.01.1995 HAVE TO BE EXAMINED METICULOUSLY AND THEREFORE THE LD. D R REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FO R RECONSIDERATION. ELZEE TELEVISION LTD. 6 9. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE ARE OF THE OPINIO N THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT( A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AFTER THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE AGREEMENTS AND ALSO AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM. ITA NOS. 3197 & 6769/M/04 REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 00-01& 01-02 10. THE FIRST GROUND REGARDING CABLE RIGHT PROTECTI ON IS COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS. THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISC USSED IN ITA NOS. 4299 & 4300/M/03 A.YRS 1998-99 & 1999-2000 AT PAR A 7 TO 9. 11. SECOND GROUND IN ITA NO. 3197/M/04 IS REGARDING DELETING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 3 34 74 778/- ON ZEE CINEMA AW ARDS. THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED IN ITA NOS. 4299 & 4300/ M/03 A.YRS 1998-99 & 1999-2000 AT PARA 7 TO 9. 12. THIRD GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS READ AS FOLLOWS: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80H HF BY HOLDING THAT 90% OF THE GROSS SUBSCRIPTION RECEIPTS COMMISSION RECEIPTS AND SUNDRY BALANCE WRITTEN OFF ARE NOT TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE PROFIT AND GAINS OF THE BUSINE SS. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS BANGALORE CLOTHING CO. 260 ITR 371 WHICH HAD BEEN RELIED ON BY HIM BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAS BEEN RECENTLY REVERSED BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN ITA NO. 2186 OF 2009 (2010- TIOL-281-HC-MUM-11 DT. 8.4.2010. THEREFORE WE REMI T BACK THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). THOUGH BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION IS IN THE CONTEST OF SEC. 80HHC AND NOT SEC. 80HHF THE L D. CIT(A) SHALL ELZEE TELEVISION LTD. 7 ANALYSE THE ISSUE OF SEC. 80HHF IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT (SUPRA) AND THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE. . IN ITA NOS. 4192 & 4193/M/03 FOR A.YRS 1998-99 & 19 99-2000- ASSESSEES APPEAL. 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL I N BOTH THE APPEALS WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: 15. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS A S FOLLOWS: (A) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN NOT D ISCUSSING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IN RESPECT OF CLAIM FOR DEDUC TION OF EXPORT PROFIT U/S. 80HHC EVEN AFTER ADMITTING THE G ROUND. NO REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN FOR DOING SO. (B) THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE ADD ITIONAL GROUND AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF EXPOR T PROFIT U/S. 80HHC 16. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI SHIVARAM SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECI SION IN THE CASE OF M/S. ABDULGAFAR A. NADIADWALA VS. ACIT 267 ITR 488 AFFIRMED BY SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. SURESH (200 4) 313 ITR 149 (SC). IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DEEM IT FIT TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS FAILED TO ADJUDICATE THE ADDITIO NAL GROUND IN RESPECT OF CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF EXPORT PROFIT U/S. 80HH C AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS B. SURESH (SUPRA) AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE. 17. THE SECOND GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS FOLLOWS: THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN SUSTAINI NG THE INCLUSION OF SUBSCRIPTION INTO THE TOTAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ALSO ASSESSED IN THE CASE OF ASIA TODAY ELZEE TELEVISION LTD. 8 LTD (LICENSOR ) AND TAXED IN THAT CASE. THE REASON S GIVEN BY HIM FOR DOING SO ARE WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE FACT S OF THE CASE AND AGAINST PROVISIONS OF LAW. THIS INCOME IS TAXED TWICE WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 18. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. ASIA TODAY LTD. WHO IS THE LICENSOR. THE INCOME WAS ALSO ADDED IN THE HANDS O F M/S. ASIA TODAY LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS GROUND IN THIS A PPEAL AS SAME INCOME CANNOT BE ADDED TAX TWICE IN THE HANDS OF TWO DIFFE RENT ASSESSEES. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN THE CASE OF M/S. ASIA TODAY IS AS FOLLOWS: THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E SUBSCRIPTION WAS NEVER COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THE SAME HAS NOT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE FACT IS THAT SU BSCRIPTION WAS COLLECTED BY M/S. EL ZEE TELEVISION PVT. LTD. AND M /S. EL ZEE TELEVISION PVT. LTD IS PAYING TAX ON THIS INCOME YE AR AFTER YEAR AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR TAXING THE SAME AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVA L SUBMISSIONS. THE SUBSCRIPTION WAS ADMITTEDLY NEVER COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WAS IN FACT COLLECTED BY M/S. EL ZEE TE LEVISION PVT. LTD AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE INCOME HA S ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT M/S . EL ZEE TELEVISION PVT. LTD IS PAYING TAX ON THE AMOUNT OF SUBSCRIPTION INCOME RECEIVED BY IT AND THEREFORE THE SAME INCOM E CANNOT BE TAXED AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT( A) HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL AND HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE SUB SCRIPTION COLLECTED BY EL ZEE TELEVISION PVT. LTD FOR THE PAY CHANNEL D OES NOT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF DEFINITION OF THE WORD ROYALTY AS DEFINED BY I.T. ACT 1961. THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTRADICT THIS F INDING OF THE CIT(A). THE REVENUE COULD NOT PROVE THE RELATIONSH IP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND M/S. EL ZEE TELEVISION PVT. LT D AS THAT OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET OF EL ZEE TELEVISION PVT. LTD. OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD AS WELL AS THE EARLIER YEAR DOES NO T INDICATE THAT THERE IS ANY SURPLUS OUT OF SUBSCRIPTION INCOME AF TER MEETING THE LOCAL EXPENSES BY EL ZEE TELEVISION PVT. LTD. THUS THERE IS NO BUSINESS INCOME WHICH CAN BE TAX ED DURING THE YEAR. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ELZEE TELEVISION LTD. 9 ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) I S CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 5 & 6 OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 19. THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IN THE ABOVE ORDER THAT T HERE IS NO BUSINESS INCOME WHICH CAN BE TAXED DURING THE YEAR AND THERE FORE DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL. AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A FIND ING THAT THERE IS NO BUSINESS INCOME WHICH CAN BE TAXED DURING THE YEAR SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND B ALANCE SHEET OF EL ZEE TELEVISION PVT. LTD. OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD AS WELL AS THE EARLIER YEAR DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THERE IS ANY SURPLUS OUT OF SUBSC RIPTION INCOME AFTER MEETING THE LOCAL EXPENSES BY EL ZEE TELEVISION PVT . LTD. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSING THIS APPEAL 20. IN THE RESULT THE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF MAY 2010 SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED .. MAY 2010 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR L BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T MUMBAI ELZEE TELEVISION LTD. 10 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 24.5.2010 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 28.5.2010 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/ PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: _________ ______ 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______