Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad V. Eenadu Television Private Limited, , Hyderabad

ITA 1168/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4165 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2018
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J SIRI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V SIVA KUMAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Question of law; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 32; 37

Judgement Text

ITA NO 1168 OF 2017 EENADU TELEV ISION PRIVATE LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1168/HYD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(2) HYDERABAD VS M/S. EENADU TELEVISION PRIVATE LIMITED HYDERABAD PAN: AACCM7226P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SHRI J. SIRI KUMAR, DR FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI V. SIVA KUMAR O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2013-14 AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-4, HYDERABAD, DATED 26.04. 2016. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF COST OF PRODUCTION OF TV SERIALS AND PROGRAMMES CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON FILM SOFTWARE LIBRARY AT 25% BY TREATING IT AS AN INTANG IBLE ASSET. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A ) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RE STORED. DATE OF HEARING: 11.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.08.2018 ITA NO 1168 OF 2017 EENADU TELEV ISION PRIVATE LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 2 OF 6 2. WHILE THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANC E UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 3. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), WE FI ND THAT THE CIT (A) FOLLOWED THE ITAT ORDERS IN THE ASSESSE ES OWN CASE FOR THE A.YS 2008-09 AND 2011-12 TO 2012-13 TO DECIDE T HE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE OR TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO TH E FILE OF THE AO. 4. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1, WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSE SSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y 2012-13, THE ITAT HAD ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE BY FOLLOWING ITS OWN ORDER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN M/S PRISM TV LTD AND THE CIT (A) HAS FOLLOWED THE SAME FOR GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVAN T PORTION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND RE ADY REFERENCE: 5. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE ITAT, HYDERABAD IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR AY 2012-13 IN ITA NO. 1245/ HYD/2016, ORDER DATED 09/08/2017 WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER: '8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN THE CASE OF M/S. PRISM TELEVISION (P) LTD ALSO IN T HE CASE CITED SUPRA WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERE D THE ISSUE AT LENGTH AND HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE'S GROUND OF APPEAL. THE RE LEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND RE ADY REFERENCE: '9. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE 'A' BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI IN T HE CASE OF ACIT, MEDIA CIRCLE-II, CHENNAI VS. M/S. SUN TV NETWORK LTD., CH ENNAI IN ITA.NOS.1515 TO 1520/MDS/2013 BY ITS ORDER DATED 31.10.2013 HAS HELD AS UNDER : '8. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN AL L THE APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING SATELLITE TE LEVISION CHANNELS. THESE CHANNELS TELECAST FILMS, SERIALS ETC., THROUGH SATE LLITE CHANNELS. THE RIGHTS OVER THESE FILMS ARE PURCHASED FROM THE PRODUCERS OF THE RESPECTIVE FILMS FOR BROADCASTING THROUGH SATELLITE TELEVISION. THESE RI GHTS COME WITH AN EMBARGO THAT THE FILMS SHALL NOT BE BROADCASTED OR AIRED FO R A SPECIFIED PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF RELEASE IN THEATRES DEPENDING UPON THE SUCC ESS AT THE BOX OFFICE AND OTHER FACTORS. TILL THE TIME, SUCH FILMS ARE BROADC ASTED, THEY ARE TO BE TREATED AS STOCK IN TRADE. ONCE THE FILMS ARE BROADCASTED, THE PURCHASE VALUE OF THE FILMS IS WRITTEN-OFF. THE EXPENDITURE ON PURCHASE O F FILMS IS CLAIMED IN THE ITA NO 1168 OF 2017 EENADU TELEV ISION PRIVATE LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 3 OF 6 FIRST YEAR ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT ONLY SATELL ITE 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 TELECA STS. THE ASSESSEE EARNS SUBSTANTIAL REVENUE IN THE FIRST TELECAST ITSELF. I N REPEAT TELECAST, THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO GENERATE MARGINAL REVENUE. WHATEVER INCOME IS EARNED FROM THE SUBSEQUENT TELECASTS IS OFFERED AS INCOME WITHOUT C LAIMING ANY EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO GENERATES REVENUE FROM BROADCASTI NG SERIALS THROUGH SATELLITE CHANNELS. THE ASSESSEE GETS REVENUE FROM PRODUCTION AND BROADCASTING SERIALS ON THE LINES OF FEATURE FILMS, THE RIGHTS OF BROADC ASTING SUCH SERIALS ARE ALSO TREATED AS STOCK IN TRADE TILL THE TIME THEY ARE AI RED AND THE EXPENSES ARE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE TREATS THE FILMS AND THE SERIALS AT PAR AND APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 9 A AND 98 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, AS ARE APPLICABLE IN CASE OF FILMS ON SERIAL S AS WELL. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE FILM AND SERIAL BROADCASTING RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY ASSESSEE ARE PERPET UAL IN NATURE. AFTER FIRST TELECAST, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DISCARD THE FILMS B UT CAREFULLY STORE THE SAME IN DIGITAL LIBRARY FOR AIRING THE SAME AGAIN. THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSEE GETS ENDURING BENEFIT FROM THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED IN FILMS AND SERIA LS AND THEY DO NOT EXPIRE ON THE DATE OF FIRST TELECAST AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE A SSESSEE. THE RIGHTS ARE INTANGIBLE ASSETS WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION (III) TO SECTION 32 AND DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 37(1). THE A SSESSEE 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 D ETAIL BY THE CIT (APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER DATED 23-02-2013 RELEVANT TO THE A Y. 200 6-07 AND 2007-08. WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE DETAILED FINDINGS AND THE REAS ONING 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 REPRODUCING THE FIN DINGS OF CIT (APPEALS) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K. Y. PILLAH & SONS REPORTED AS 63 ITR 411 SUBSEQUENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. GLOBAL VANTEDGE (P) LTD., REPORTED AS 354 ITR 21 (DEL). TH E ID. DR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE CIT (A PPEALS) ON THE ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (APPEALS) ON T HE ISSUE ARE AFFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF ALL THE AYS IS DISMISSED.' 9.1. IN THE CASE OF ZEE MEDIA CORPORATION LTD., (FO RMERLY KNOWN ZEE NEWS LIMITED), MUMBAI VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(3), MUMBAI, THE 'G' BENCH OF TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI IN ITA.NO.1590/MUM/2015 BY ORDER DATED 12 .08.2015 HAS HELD AS UNDER : '25. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE CITED PRECEDENTS AND PAP ER BOOK FILED BEFORE US. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE MERITS IS THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS A METHOD OF VALUATION OF THE NEWS ITEMS/NON FICTIONAL IN NATURE , TV PROGRAMS AND THE FILM RIGHTS. THE DETAILS ARE GIVEN IN THE AFOREMENTIONED 'NOTE NO 7' TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. ACCORDING TO THE SAME, WHILE THE NEWS I TEMS PURCHASED ARE DEBITED TO THE P AND L ACCOUNT AS THEY DO NOT HAVE THE REPEAT TELECAST VALUE, OTHER ITEMS LIKE THE TV PROGRAM AND THE FILM RIGHTS CONSTITUTES 'CURRENT ASSETS', WHICH ARE AMORTISED OVER THE YEARS AND THE PERIOD O F SUCH AMORTIZATION IS GIVEN IN THE SAID NOTE. PER CONTRA, THE CASE OF THE REVENUE ON THESE ISSUES IS ITA NO 1168 OF 2017 EENADU TELEV ISION PRIVATE LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 4 OF 6 THAT THESE ITEMS CONSTITUTE 'INTANGIBLE DEPRECIABLE CAPITAL ASSETS' AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT APPLY. CONSIDERING THE SAM E, WE SHALL NOW UNDERTAKE TO DISCUSS THE ITEM WISE ADJUDICATION AS FOLLOWS. A. ON THE DEBITS RELATING TO THE PURCHASES OF THE N EWS ITEMS: REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE NEWS ITEMS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DEBITED TO THE P AND L ACCOUNT, WE FIND IT IS IN THE COMMON KNOWLEDGE OF E VERY CITIZEN THAT THE NEWS ITEMS DO NOT HAVE ENDURING BENEFIT. NORMALLY, THE N EWS ITEMS/NON FICTIONAL ITEMS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE LOSE ITS VALUE ONCE THEY ARE TELECAST. THEREFORE, SUCH ITEMS DO NOT HAVE REPEAT TELECAST V ALUE IN TERMS OF THE REVENUE GENERATION BY WAY OF ADVERTISEMENT FROM THE SPONSOR S. AS SUCH, IT IS A SETTLED ISSUE AT THE LEVEL OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF TELEVISION EIGHTEEN INDIA LTD (SUPRA) THAT THE CLAIMS OF THE A SSESSEE RELATING TO NEWS/NON-FICTIONAL ITEMS ARE ALLOWABLE. EVEN OTHERW ISE, EVEN IF SOME INCOME GENERATED, THAT IS NOT CRITERION FOR DESCRIBING THE ITEMS AS 'INTANGIBLE ASSETS' FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 2(II) OF THE ACT. WE RELY ON THE ABOVE REFERRED DELHI HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT IN T HE CASE OF TELEVISION EIGHTEEN INDIA LTD (SUPRA). FURTHER, WE FIND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS A DECLARED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING RELATING TO ACCOUNTING OF THES E TRANSACTIONS. HE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WITHOUT ANY CHANGE. IN FACT, THE REVENUE HAS CONSISTENTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM IN THE PAST. THIS IS FOR THE FIRST TIME, AO DISTURBED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 (II) OF THE ACT, WITHOUT ANY SUSTAINABLE REASONING. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THE POINTS MENTIONED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE FIRM OPIN ION THAT THE DECISION OF THE AO/CIT(A) IS UNSUSTAINABLE LEGALLY. HENCE, THE ASSE SSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE PURCHASES OF NEWS ITEMS/NON-FICTIONAL ITEMS AS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE RELEVAN T ADDITION. B. ON THE DEBITS RELATING TO THE PURCHASES OF THE T V PROGRAMS/FILM RIGHTS: ASSESSEE AMORTISED THE 'INVENTORIES' AS PER THE MET HOD OF ACCOUNTING CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY HIM OVER THE YEARS. IN FAC T, THE REVENUE HAS CONSISTENTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM IN THE PAST. THIS IS FOR THE FIRST TIME, AO DISTURBED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 (II) OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY SUSTAINABLE REASONING. WE HAVE PERUSED HE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL OF CHENNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S SUN TV NETWORKS LT D (SUPRA). WE HAVE ALSO EXTRACTED THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS AND ALREADY PLACED IN THIS ORDER ABOVE. WE FIND SIMILAR ISSUE OF AMORTIZATION OF THE TV PRO GRAMS/FILM RIGHTS CAME UP BEFORE THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN TH E ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND REJECTED THE AO'S PROPOS AL TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(II) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ABOV E PROGRAMS/RIGHTS. AS SUCH, THE LD DR'S ARGUMENT ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE AS -26 TO THE TV PROGRAMS AND FILM RIGHTS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY PRECEDENTS AND THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT ALLOWED. TH US, CONSIDERING THE COVERED NATURE OF THE ISSUE AS WELL AS THE CONSISTE NT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND ALSO IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE REVENUE AG AINST THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECISION TAKEN BY TH E CIT (A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS REQUIRED TO BE REVERSED. ACCORDINGLY, GROU ND NOS. 2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 9.2. IN COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TELEVISION EIGHTEEN INDIA LIMITED REPORTED IN (2014) 364 ITR 597 (DEL.). THE RELEVAN T PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS REPRODU CED AS UNDER : ITA NO 1168 OF 2017 EENADU TELEV ISION PRIVATE LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 5 OF 6 'THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL CLAIMING TO BE AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLANT TRIBUNAL (ITAT) DATED 17.0 3.2006. THE QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED IN THIS CASE IS:- (I) WHETHER THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS R IGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON PROD UCTION OF PROGRAMMES WHICH BECAME PART OF NEWS ARCHIVES SHOULD BE ALLOWE D AS A REVENUE EXPENSE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND SHOULD NOT BE TREA TED AS INCURRED FOR CREATING A CAPITAL ASSET? THE ASSESSEE, AT THE RELEVANT TIME, WAS IN THE BUSI NESS OF TELEVISION PROGRAMME PRODUCTION. THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED RS.88, 83,128/- BEING 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY IT AS VALUE OF 'N EWS ARCHIVES' UNDER THE HEAD OF FIXED ASSETS. IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPEND ITURE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THIS EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOCATED FOR THE CRE ATION OF 'NEWS ACHIEVES', WHICH COMPRISED OF ITS PUBLISHED OR TELECASTED PROG RAMMES. THE AO CAPITALISED THIS AMOUNT HOLDING THAT THE EXPENDITUR E LED TO CREATION OF AN ASSET OF ENDURING ADVANTAGE. THE CIT (APPEALS) ON APPEAL, HOWEVER, REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE NEWS AR CHIVES WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF PLANT OR INCOME GENERATING APPARATUS BUT PART OF THE PRODUCT. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE UNAVAILABILITY OF ANY OBJECTIVE BASIS, TO QUANTIFY WITH ANY DECREE OF ACCURACY FUTURE REVENUE THAT WERE LIKELY TO BE GENERATED AND THE PROPORTIONATE COST OF PRODUCTION THAT COULD BE DEFE RRED, LED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE EARMARKED FOR CREATION OF 'NEWS ARCHIVES' COULD NOT BE TREATED AS A CAPITAL EXPENDI TURE. ON THE REVENUE'S APPEAL, THE ITAT HELD AS FOLLOWS:- '12. IT IS ADMITTED THAT NO SEPARATE ACCOUNT WAS MA INTAINED WHEREIN ANY EXPENDITURE WAS DEBITED WHICH COULD BE EARMARKED TO WARDS CREATION OF NEWS ARCHIVES LIBRARY. THE ASSESSEE FELT A PART OF FOOTA GE OF THE NEWS BASED ON PROGRAMMES PRODUCED HAS REPEAT VALUE WHICH COULD BE USED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PROGRAMME IN FUTURE. THE ASSESSEE, TH EREFORE, ESTIMATED 10% EXPENDITURE INCURRED AS REASONABLE TO BE ATTRIBUTAB LE TO THE NEWS ARCHIVES LIBRARY. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PRODU CTION OF SUCH PROGRAMMES SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 AND ALL ALONG THE COS T OF PRODUCTION OF SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND ALSO ALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT. LEARNED A.R. HAS REFERRED TO JUDGMENT O F HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. VS. CIT 177 ITR 377 WHICH LAID DOWN THAT WHAT IS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND WHAT IS R EVENUE ARE NOT ETERNAL VERITIES BUT MUST NEEDS TO BE FLEXIBLE SO AS TO RES POND TO THE CHANGING ECONOMIC REALITIES OF BUSINESS. VIEWED IN THAT PERS PECTIVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ESTIMATED VALUE ASSIGNED TO THE NE WS ARCHIVES CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE CAPITA L FIELD. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS GROUND. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE DATA BAS E OF THE PROGRAMMES WHICH ARE UTILISED FOR THE CREATION OF 'NEWS ARCHIVES' BELONG ED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FUTURE LIKELIHOOD OF THESE RESOURCES BEING A POSSIB LE SOURCE OF REVENUE, CANNOT IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT JUSTIFY ITS INCLUSION IN THE CAPITAL STREAM. FURTHERMORE, THIS COURT NOTICES THAT THE EXPENDITUR E I.E. 10% RS.88,83,128/- IS A PART OF THE ENTIRE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS CONCEDEDLY TREATED AS REVENUE, EVEN OTHERWISE. ITA NO 1168 OF 2017 EENADU TELEV ISION PRIVATE LTD HYDERABAD. PAGE 6 OF 6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.' 9.3. THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ISSUE IS FAIRLY COVE RED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ABOVE DECISION AND THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO TREA T THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON COST OF PRODUCTION OF TV PROGRAM MES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE REVENUES GROU ND IS REJECTED. 5. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 ALSO, WE FIND THAT THE CI T (A) HAS DIRECTED THE REMAND OF THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y 2012-13, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION @ 25% SUBJECT TO REVALUATION OF THE ASSET. THEREFORE, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE O RDER OF THE CIT (A). 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH AUGUST, 2018. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 17 TH AUGUST, 2018. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 DY. CIT, CIRCLE 16(2), 2 ND FLOOR, B-BLOCK, IT TOWERS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD 2 M/S. EENADU TELEVISION PVT. LTD, 1-10-76, FAIR FI ELD, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD 500033 3 CIT (A)-4, HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 4 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER