ACIT, CHENNAI v. Sun Tv Network Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1517/CHNY/2013 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 151721714 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AADCS4885K
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1517/CHNY/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, CHENNAI
Respondent Sun Tv Network Ltd., CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 14-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 14-10-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 08-07-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 & 1520/MDS /2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-0 8 2008-09 & 2009-10 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MEDIA CIRCLE-II CHENNAI 600 034. (APPELLANT) VS M/S. SUN TV NETWORK LTD. MURASOLI MARAN TOWER NO.73 MRC NAGAR MAIN ROAD MRC NAGAR CHENNAI 600 028. [PAN: AADCS 4885 K] (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB ADDL. CIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN ADVOCATE & SHRI K. RAMKRISHNAN CA DATE OF HEARING : 14-10-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-10-2013 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THESE SIX APPEALS IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VI CH ENNAI DATED 25-03-2013 IN RESPECT OF AYS 2004-05 2005-06 2008 -09 2009-10 AND ORDER DATED 22-03-2013 IN RESPECT OF AYS 2006-0 7 & 2007-08. ITA.NOS. 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 & 1520/MDS/13 2 SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THE SIX APP EALS THE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE P ROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF PRODUCING AND BROADCASTING SATELLITE TELEVISION SOF TWARE AND RUNNING SATELLITE TELEVISION CHANNEL. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS/DIS -ALLOWANCES IN THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE RESPECTIVE AYS. THE ASSE SSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE CIT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) VIDE COMMON ORDER DATED 25-03-2013 ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEE. FOR THE AYS. 2004-05 2005-06 2008-09 2009-10 SIMILAR LY FOR THE AYS. 2006-07 & 2007-08 THE CIT(APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 22-03-2013 ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ABOVE SAID ORDERS THE REVENUE HAS FILE D APPEALS FOR ALL THE SIX AYS. THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE SIX APPEALS IS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY ASSESSEE TOWARDS PROGRAMME PRODUCTION EXPENSES AMORTIZATION OF FILM AND SERIAL BROADCAST ING RIGHTS COST ITA.NOS. 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 & 1520/MDS/13 3 OF PROGRAMME CONTENT (RIGHTS) AND EXPENDITURE TOWAR DS CONSUMABLES AND MEDIA CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS RE VENUE EXPENDITURE. WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE RESPECTIVE AYS. HELD THAT THE E XPENDITURE ON THE ITEMS MENTIONED ABOVE IS TO BE CAPITALIZED. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT RUL E 9A AND 9B OF THE INCOME TAX RULES ARE APPLICABLE ON PRODUCTION O F SERIALS AS WELL AS BROADCASTING OF THE FILMS AND SERIALS THROU GH SATELLITE CHANNEL. APART FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED COMMON ISSUE IN ALL THE AYS SOME OTHER ISSUES ARE ALSO RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE SAME ARE CONCISED AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 & 2005-06 : RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 : WRITE-OFF OF MOVIE ADVANCES ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10 : 1. DIS-ALLOWANCES U/S.14A R.W.R. 8D 2. DEFERRED INCOME ITA.NOS. 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 & 1520/MDS/13 4 4. SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE RESPECTIVE AYS. AND PRAYED FOR THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE IMPUG NED ORDERS. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE LD .DR WHILE MAKING HIS SUBMISSION ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE F OLLOWING JUDGMENTS: I. CIT VS. M. SUBRAMANIAM REPORTED AS 272 ITR 525 (MAD); II. VIESHESH FILMS P. LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED AS 26 SOT 64 (MUM); III. CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED AS 121 ITD 318 (DEL) SB IV. CIT VS. IDEAL GARDEN COMPLEX P. LTD. REPORTED AS 340 ITR 609 (MAD); V. ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. REPORTED AS 291 ITR 500 VI. CIT VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. REPORTED AS 348 ITR 485 (DEL)(FB) 5. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI N. DEVANATHAN ADVOCATE & SHRI K. RAMAKRISHNAN CA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(AP PEALS) AND ITA.NOS. 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 & 1520/MDS/13 5 PRAYED FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE AYS . 2004-05 & 2005-06 THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT RE-OPENING HAS BEEN DONE IN WRONGFUL MANNER. FOR THE AYS. 2004-05 RE-OPENING PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOU R YEARS AND FOR BOTH THE AYS I.E. 2004-05 & 2005-06 THERE WAS NO VALID GROUND FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). ON MERIT S THE LD. COUNSEL REITERATED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(APPEALS). TO BUTTRES S HIS SUBMISSIONS THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE FOLLOWIN G JUDGMENTS: I. CIT VS. SUN TV LTD. REPORTED AS 296 ITR 274 (MAD); II. DEVI FILMS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AS 75 ITR 301(MAD) 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES. WE HAVE ALSO PE RUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE DECI SIONS RELIED ON BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. 7. FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF RE-OPENING I N AY. 2004-05 & 2005-06. IN THE AY. 2004-05 THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF ITA.NOS. 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 & 1520/MDS/13 6 INCOME ON 30-10-2004. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 14 3(3) WAS PASSED ON 29-12-2006. NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT W AS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 29-03-2011. THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISS UANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 I.E. WITHIN THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS HAS ELAPSED ON 31-03-2009. UN-DISPUTEDLY RE-OPENING PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY. 2004-05 BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AND IS THUS CLEARLY HIT BY PROVISO TO SE CTION 147 OF THE ACT. FOR AY. 2005-06 THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETUR N OF INCOME ON 29-10-2005. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143( 1) ON 30-03-2007. NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSE SSEE ON 25-03-2011. THE RE-OPENING PROCEEDINGS ARE WELL WI THIN THE LIMIT OF FOUR YEARS IN RESPECT OF AY. 2005-06. WHAT IS T O BE ASCERTAINED IS WHETHER THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING IN BOTH THE A YS ARE VALID? THE RE-OPENING PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED FILM RIGHTS AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE BUT WERE TREATED AS INTANGIBLE ASSETS. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAPITALIZED. A PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDER REVEALS THAT THE DETAIL S REGARDING COST OF FILMS AND THE NATURE OF EXPENDITU RE ETC. WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT . THE CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS OBSERVED THA T THE ITA.NOS. 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 & 1520/MDS/13 7 ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE AY. 2004-05 HAD EXAMINED THE MATERIALS AND DISCUSSE D THE ISSUE OF AMORTIZATION OF THE COST OF FILM RIGHTS. ON SOM E SET OF FACTS RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED IN AY. 2005-0 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE EXPENDITURE C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE SAME. WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THE RE-OPENING IS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CHANG E OF OPINION. WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE OF RE-OPENIN G FOR BOTH THE AYS I.E. AY. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 IS CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. NOW WE TAKE UP THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNIN G SATELLITE TELEVISION CHANNELS. THESE CHANNELS TELECAST FILMS SERIALS ETC. THROUGH SATELLITE CHANNELS. THE RIGHTS OVER THESE FILMS ARE PURCHASED FROM THE PRODUCERS OF THE RESPECTIVE FILM S FOR BROADCASTING THROUGH SATELLITE TELEVISION. THESE R IGHTS COME WITH AN EMBARGO THAT THE FILMS SHALL NOT BE BROADCASTED OR AIRED FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF RELEASE IN THEATR ES DEPENDING UPON THE SUCCESS AT THE BOX OFFICE AND OTHER FACTOR S. TILL THE TIME ITA.NOS. 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 & 1520/MDS/13 8 SUCH FILMS ARE BROADCASTED THEY ARE TO BE TREATED AS STOCK IN TRADE. ONCE THE FILMS ARE BROADCASTED THE PURCHAS E VALUE OF THE FILMS IS WRITTEN-OFF. THE EXPENDITURE ON PURCHASE OF FILMS IS CLAIMED IN THE FIRST YEAR ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE HA S GOT ONLY SATELLITE TELECASTING RIGHTS AND HAS NO UNIVERSAL RIGHTS FOR AIRING THE FILMS OR SERIALS. ONCE THE FILM OR THE SERIAL IS AIRED ITS VALUE IS DIMINISHED IN SUBSEQUENT TELECASTS. THE ASSESSEE EARNS SUBSTA NTIAL REVENUE IN THE FIRST TELECAST ITSELF. IN REPEAT TELECAST THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO GENERATE MARGINAL REVENUE. WHATEVER INCOME IS EAR NED FROM THE SUBSEQUENT TELECASTS IS OFFERED AS INCOME WITHOUT C LAIMING ANY EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO GENERATES REVENUE FROM BROADCAST ING SERIALS THROUGH SATELLITE CHANNELS. THE ASSESSEE G ETS REVENUE FROM PRODUCTION AND BROADCASTING SERIALS ON THE LIN ES OF FEATURE FILMS THE RIGHTS OF BROADCASTING SUCH SERIALS ARE ALSO TREATED AS STOCK IN TRADE TILL THE TIME THEY ARE AIRED AND THE EXPENSES ARE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE TREATS THE FILMS AND THE SERIALS AT PAR AND APPLIED THE PROVISIONS O F RULE 9A AND 9B OF THE INCOME TAX RULES AS ARE APPLICABLE IN CASE OF FILMS ON SERIALS AS WELL. ITA.NOS. 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 & 1520/MDS/13 9 ON THE OTHER HAND THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE FILM AND SERIAL BROADCASTING RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY ASS ESSEE ARE PERPETUAL IN NATURE. AFTER FIRST TELECAST THE ASS ESSEE DOES NOT DISCARD THE FILMS BUT CAREFULLY STORE THE SAME IN D IGITAL LIBRARY FOR AIRING THE SAME AGAIN. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE GET S ENDURING BENEFIT FROM THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED IN FILMS AND SERIA LS AND THEY DO NOT EXPIRE ON THE DATE OF FIRST TELECAST AS CONTEMPLATE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RIGHTS ARE INTANGIBLE ASSETS WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION (III) TO SECTION 32 AND DO NOT FALL WIT HIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 37(1). THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON SAME. 9. THE ISSUE OF AMORTIZATION OF COST OF MOVIE AND S ERIAL RIGHTS PROGRAMME PRODUCTION EXPENSES CONSUMABLE AND MEDIA EXPENSES BY TREATING THEM AS INTANGIBLE ASSETS U/S. 32(1)(II) HAS BEEN DEALT IN DETAIL BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS ORD ER DATED 23-02-2013 RELEVANT TO THE AY. 2006-07 AND 2007-08. WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE DETAILED FINDINGS AND THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER ALLOWING THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY WE ARE NOT REP RODUCING THE FINDINGS OF CIT(APPEALS) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUD GMENT OF THE ITA.NOS. 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 & 1520/MDS/13 10 HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.Y. PILLAH & SONS REPORTED AS 63 ITR 411 SUBSEQUENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GLOBAL VANTEDGE(P) LTD. REPORTED AS 354 ITR 21 (DEL) . THE LD. DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY THE FINDIN GS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE ARE AFFIRMED AND THIS GRO UND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF ALL THE AYS IS DISMISS ED. 10. IN ITA NO. 1518/MDS/2013 RELEVANT TO THE AY. 20 07-08 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED A GROUND WITH REGARD TO WRITE-OF F OF ADVANCES GIVEN FOR PRODUCTION OF FILMS. THE AR HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED AS ADVANCES WRITTEN-OFF REPRESENTS THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO PRODUCERS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS WHICH HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT FOR TELECASTING THE MOVIES AND SERIALS IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PURCHAS E THE MOVE AND SERIAL RIGHTS. IN THE COURSE OF PURCHASING MOVIE/S ERIAL RIGHTS ADVANCES ARE GIVEN TO THE PRODUCERS/PRODUCTION HOUS ES OF THE SERIALS AND THE MOVIES. IN SOME OF THE CASES THE AMOUNTS GIVEN AS ADVANCE BECOME BAD-DEBT AND HENCE BECOME IR-RECO VERABLE. ITA.NOS. 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 & 1520/MDS/13 11 THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO WRITE-OFF T HE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF MOVIES. ON APPEAL THE CIT(APPEALS) REVERS ED THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT IN T HE CASE OF TURNER MORRISON & CO. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AS 245 ITR 724 (CAL) AND CIT VS. BHAGWARPRASAD REPORTED AS 256 ITR 772 (GUJ). WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF TH E REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 11. IN ITA NO. 1519 & 1520/2013 FOR THE AYS. 2008- 09 & 2009- 10 RESPECTIVELY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEALS HAS RAI SED AN ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO DEFERRED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE-COM PANY COLLECTS THE FEE TOWARDS SALE OF TIME-SLOT IN ADVANCE AND RE COGNIZES IT AS REVENUE ONLY WHEN THE PROGRAMME IS BROADCASTED. TH E LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE TIME SLOT IS NOT AIRED DU RING THE YEAR BUT THE SAME IS SOLD BILLS ARE RAISED AND MONIES ARE R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN LINE WITH MERCANTILE SYSTEM O F ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE CURRENT YEAR. ITA.NOS. 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 & 1520/MDS/13 12 IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE INCOME GENERATED BY SEL LING THE TIME-SLOT IS OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE YEAR OF BROAD CASTING/AIRING THE PROGRAMME. THE MONIES RECEIVED ARE SHOWN AS DEFERR ED REVENUE IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT AND ARE OFFERED AS INCOME I N THE YEAR WHEN PROGRAMME IS AIRED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ILLEGALITY OR IRREGULARITY IN METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE IN REGISTERING THE REVENUE IN THE YEAR OF TELECAST OF PROGRAMME. THERE IS NO MER IT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE APPEALS FOR THE AY. 2008-09 & 2009-10 T HERE IS ANOTHER ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO DIS-ALLOWANCE OF ` 97 30 000/- AND ` 1 86 74 250/- U/S. 14A R.W.R. 8D. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE NOT MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THEREFORE ARE N OT BE TREATED AS TRADE INVESTMENTS. MOREOVER THE INVESTMENTS IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES WERE MADE OUT OF THE FUNDS RAISED THROUGH PUBLIC ISSUE AND NOT OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS. THE LD. DR HAS CONT ENDED THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE HUGE INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF ` 2584.08 MILLION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AS SESSEE MUST HAVE INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE TOWARDS ADMINISTR ATIVE EXPENSES CONSULTING CHARGES AND MANAGERIAL EXPENSE S. THE ITA.NOS. 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 & 1520/MDS/13 13 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISION S OF RULE 8D(III) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHETHER THE INVESTMENT HAVE BEEN MADE FOR STRATEGIC PURPOSES OR OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE INCURRED SOME EXPENDITURE ON MANAGING THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO AND THE DIVIDENDS EARNED F ROM THE SAME. EVEN IF THE APPLICATION OF RULE 8D IS NOT AUTOMATI C BUT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE INVESTMENTS MADE HAS TO BE DIS- ALLOWED. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT THERE IS N O NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXEMPTED INCOME AND THE EXPENDITURE DEB ITED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INVOKED T HE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D AND HAS DIS-ALLOWED ` 97 30 000/- IN THE AY. 2007-08 AND ` 1 86 74 250/- IN AY. 2009-10. WE REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE CIT(APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER MAKIN G REASONABLE DIS-ALLOWANCE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENU E IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED VOLU MINOUS PAPER BOOKS BUT NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOKS WERE REFERRED TO AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THEREFORE THE DOCUMENTS FILED IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK ARE NOT TAKEN ON RECORD. IN ACCORDANCE ITA.NOS. 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 & 1520/MDS/13 14 WITH RULE 18(6) OF THE ITAT RULES 1963 THE PAPER BOOKS FILED ARE NOT TO BE TREATED AS PART OF THE RECORD OF TRIBUNAL . 14. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE I.E. ITA NO. 1515 FOR THE AY. 2004-05 ITA NO. 1516 FOR THE AY. 2005- 06 ITA NO. 1517 FOR THE AY. 2006-07 AND ITA NO. 1518 FOR THE A Y. 2007-08 ARE DISMISSED AND ITA NO. 1519 FOR THE AY. 2008-09 AND ITA NO. 1520 FOR THE AY. 2009-10 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY THE 31 ST OCTOBER 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) (VIK AS AWASTHY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31 ST OCTOBER 2013 TNMM COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR