Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: empanelment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT RATES :: form 3cd :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT Audit :: TDS :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4%
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

ACIT, Circle 9(1), Room No.163, CR Building, New Delhi. Vs. Sparrow Hawk India Pvt. Ltd., Formerly known as Hallmark India Pvt. Ltd., 602, Antriksh Bhawan, New Delhi.
January, 12th 2016
      IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
           DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI
    BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & SHRI C.M. GARG, JM

                       ITA No.4301/Del/2009
                      Assessment Year : 2006-07

ACIT,                        Vs.   Sparrow Hawk India Pvt. Ltd.,
Circle 9(1), Room No.163,          Formerly known as Hallmark India
CR Building,                       Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi.                         602, Antriksh Bhawan,
                                   New Delhi.
                                   PAN : AAACH6943E

  (Appellant)                                 (Respondent)

             Assessee By      :    Shri Sunil Mohan Buckshee, Advocate
             Department By    :    Ms Anima Bernwal, Sr. DR


           Date of Hearing           :   11.01.2016
           Date of Pronouncement     :   11.01.2016

                               ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL, AM:
     This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order

passed by the CIT(A) on 3.7.2009 in relation to the assessment year

2006-07.
                                                          ITA No.4301/Del/2009


2.   The only issue raised in this appeal is against the allowing of

deduction of expenses amounting to Rs.1,45,45,673/-, which was

disallowed by the AO on the ground that the assessee had not carried out

any business activity during the year.




3.   Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is

engaged in the business of distributing the Hallmark Channel in India.

On being called upon to explain as to why the expenses claimed by it be

not disallowed as no business activity was conducted, the assessee

submitted that it was set up in 1999 and entered into an Agreement with

M/s Modi Entertainment Ltd., for taking their services in the distribution

of Hallmark Channel in India. This Agreement was stated to have

expired in December, 2004, after which, it started negotiating with other

agencies for distribution of the Channel. The assessee further submitted

that the process of negotiations reached a crucial stage when the

assessee's parent company was acquired by a new set of entrepreneurs in

April, 2005 and the new owners took some time to settle in and process

the negotiation with different agencies in India when the business


                                    2
                                                          ITA No.4301/Del/2009


activity was started. Not satisfied with the assessee's contention, the AO

came to hold that in the absence of any business carried on by the

assessee, such expenses amounting to Rs.1,45,45,673/- were not

allowable. The ld. CIT(A) overturned the assessment order on this issue

and allowed deduction for expenses by observing that the business of the

company was in continuation though at a lower level. The Revenue is

aggrieved against the allowing of deduction of such expenses.




4.   After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant

material on record, it is observed that the assessee company during the

year earned subscription fees of Rs.18,900/-, apart from earning rental

income and interest on bank deposits. It is apparent that the Hallmark

Channel was running as the assessee announced advertisements for

telecast of movies for 20.11.2005 for the month of March, 2006 for

which the assessee paid subscription to Cable TVs for the period

1.12.2005 to 28.2.2006 and from 1.3.2006 to 31.3.2006. The assessee

also paid decoder rent to Cable TV for the period 1.3.2006 to 31.3.2006.

The above narration of facts amply demonstrates that the assessee was


                                    3
                                                               ITA No.4301/Del/2009


engaged in business during the previous year relevant to assessment year

under consideration and also earned subscription fees, even though it

was at a lower level. The view point of the AO that no deduction of

expenses could be allowed because no business activity was carried on,

in our considered opinion, has been rightly rejected in the first appeal.

We, therefore, uphold the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) in allowing

deduction of such expenses.

5.        In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

          The order pronounced in the open court on 11.01.2016.

               Sd/-                                           Sd/-


        [C.M. GARG]                                  [R.S. SYAL]
     JUDICIAL MEMBER                             ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated, 11th January, 2016.
dk
Copy forwarded to:
     1.   Appellant
     2.   Respondent
     3.   CIT
     4.   CIT (A)
     5.   DR, ITAT
                                                    AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.
                                         4

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Organic SEO Outsourcing Organic Search Engine Optimization Outsourcing Organic Website SEO Organic SEO India Website SEO India Organic Search Engine Optimization India Organic Internet SEO India Organic Web

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions