Mohd.Azharuddin, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Hyderabad

ITA 647/HYD/2004

• Counselvise Citation: 64722514 RSA 2004
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARITA
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALIKRISHNA
• Keywords: Gift; Salary income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.194/HYD/2002 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-1999 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4 HYDERABAD. VS. MR. MOHD. AZHARUDDIN, PLOT NO. 1339, ROAD NO.67, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD PAN ACIPM0859K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA.NO.46/HYD/2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4 HYDERABAD. VS. MR. MOHD. AZHARUDDIN, PLOT NO. 1339, ROAD NO.67, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD PAN ACIPM0859K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA.NO.225/HYD/2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 MR. MOHD. AZHARUDDIN, PLOT NO. 1339, ROAD NO.67, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD PAN ACIPM0859K VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4 HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA.NO.647/HYD/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 MR. MOHD. AZHARUDDIN, PLOT NO. 1339, ROAD NO.67, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD PAN ACIPM0859K VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4 HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD ITA.NO.1040/HYD/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002 MR. MOHD. AZHARUDDIN, PLOT NO. 1339, ROAD NO.67, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD PAN ACIPM0859K VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1) HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR REVENUE : SMT. HARITA FOR ASSESSEE : MR. P. MURALI KRISHNA DATE OF HEARING : 16.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.01.2014 ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THERE ARE GROUP OF APPEALS BY ASSESSEE AND REVENUE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE I NVOLVED WE HAVE HEARD THEM TOGETHER AND DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA.NO.194/HYD/2002 A.Y. 1998-99 THIS IS REVENUE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD DATED 14.12.2001. REVENUE HAS RAI SED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 2. THE HONBLE CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT OF THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PROFESSIONAL PLAYER . 3. THE AWARD MONEY OF RS. 3 LAKHS CLAIMED AS EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(17A) IS INCORRECT AS THE SAID AWARD IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION SINCE THE SAME IS NOT APPEARING IN THE NOTIFIED LIST. 4. THE REGISTRATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AGAINST EARNING OF LOGO MONEY IS NOT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 57(III) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT. ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD 2. GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 5 ARE GENERAL AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. GROUND NO 2 AND 3 ARE ON THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION ON AWARD MONEY. GROUND NO 4 IS ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE PAPER BOOK PLAC ED ON RECORD ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE D.R. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE WAS WORKING AS AN OFFICE R IN STATE BANK OF INDIA AND WAS CRICKET PLAYER OF REPUT E AND PLAYED CRICKET FOR THE BANK AND ALSO FOR THE COUNTRY. IN THE RETURN, HE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY, PROFESSIONAL INCOME AND OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF RS.9,42,644/- AS EXEMPT FROM INCOME T AX IN VIEW OF BOARD CIRCULAR NO.447/199/1/86IT(A1) DATED 22.01.1986 WITH RESPECT TO NET PRIZE MONEY RECEIVED FRO M VARIOUS CRICKET TOURNAMENTS AT RS.6,19,067/-, AWARDS AND GIFTS OF RS.23,577/- AND MAN OF MATCH AWARDS OF RS. 3 LAKHS. THE A.O. DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMP TION ON THE REASON THAT IN CASE OF SPORTSMAN WHO IS A PROFESSIONA L, AWARDS RECEIVED BY HIM SHALL BE IN THE NATURE OF BENEF IT IN EXERCISE OF HIS PROFESSION AND THEREFORE, LIABLE TO TAX UND ER THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT HE IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL CRICKETER AND HE IS PLAYING FOR THE COUNTRY UN DER THE AEGIS OF BCCI WHICH DECIDES PAYMENTS TO BE MADE TO THE PLAYERS BY WAY OF FEES, LOGO AMOUNT, SHARE OF PRIZE MONEY ETC., AND HE HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE MATCHES PLAYED AND AMOUNTS RECEIVED. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FO UND ACCEPTABLE TO THE A.O. WHO HELD THAT CRICKET PLAYED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HIS PROFESSION. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE ON FACTS OF ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD THE CASE AS WELL AS FOLLOWING THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF MR. G.R. VISWANATH VS. FIFTH I TO 29 ITD 142 HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL. ACCORDINGL Y, THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY HIM TOTALLING TO RS.9,42,644/- WER E HELD NOT TAXABLE IN VIEW OF THE BOARD CIRCULAR NO. 447/199/1/86IT(A1) DATED 22.01.1986. 5. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED ON THE ISSUE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3 LAKHS RECEIVED AS MAN OF MATCH AWARDS. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS, WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH REVENUE CONTENTIONS. EVEN THOUGH TH E INCOMES ARE OFFERED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINE SS OR PROFESSION, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ASSESSEE IS A PROFESS IONAL PLAYER. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSES SEE IS PLAYING FOR THE COUNTRY UNDER THE AEGIS OF BCCI AND HE HAS NO INDIVIDUAL PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT TO PLAY IN ANY MATCH AS HE WISH. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED C IT(A) THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL CRICKETER. MOREOV ER, THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE OTHER AMOUNTS AND ONLY CONTEST ING IN GROUND NO.3 TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3 LAKHS RECEIVED AS M AN OF MATCH AWARDS WHICH WAS ALSO CLAIMED AS EXEMPT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HAVE NO HESITA TION IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE. GROUNDS 2 AND 3 ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 7. GROUND NO.4 PERTAINS TO THE RESTRICTION OF DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AGAINST EARNING OF LOGO MONEY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 57(III). THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.18,86,455/- AGAINST THE INC OME FROM LOGO DISCLOSED AT RS.32,24,411/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD THE A.O. THAT THE LOGO MONEY WAS COLLECTED AND PAID B Y THE BCCI TO ALL THE PLAYERS. THE DRESS, BATS AND OTHER EQ UIPMENT SHOW LOGO OF THE SPONSOR AND SUPPLIED BY THE SPONSOR. SE NIOR PLAYERS LIKE THE ASSESSEE HAVE THEIR OWN EQUIPMENT SP ECIALLY MADE FOR AND THEY PAY FOR IT. MOST OF THE OCCASIONS, THE GLOVES, PADS, DRESS MATERIAL AND OTHER EQUIPMENT ARE TAKEN AWAY BY STAFF, GROUNDS MEN, FANS, ETC AND THE ASSESSEE WAS I N NO POSITION TO CONTROL THEM. THEREFORE, THESE HAVE TO REPLA CED AT THEIR OWN COST. THE LEATHER GLOVES, SHOES, ETC., ARE VERY EXPENSIVE AND EACH ITEMS COSTS RS.5000/- TO RS.10,0 00/- AND THESE HAVE TO BE CHANGED SEVERAL TIMES. ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENSES OF RS. 18,86,455/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THIS IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE AGAINST LOGO INCOME. 8. BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS STATED THAT ON MAN Y OCCASIONS, EQUIPMENT LIKE PADS, GLOVES, BATS. ETC., ARE TAKEN AWAY BY THE FANS, GROUNDS MEN ETC AS MEMORABILIA. BECAU SE OF THIS REASON HUGE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR HIS PRACTIC E AND PLAYING THE MATCHES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E CBDT CIRCULAR NO.1432 ISSUED IN 1981 THOUGH HAS BEEN WITHDR AWN, HAS GIVEN BENEFIT TO CRICKET PLAYERS TO THE EXTENT OF 75 % OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED. EVEN THOUGH THE CIRCULAR WAS WITHDRAWN, T HE CBDT HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE CRICKET PLAYERS TH AT THEY HAVE TO INCUR HUGE EXPENDITURE TO CONTINUE TO PLAY CRICKE T IN THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEVEL AND A DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CRICKET TO BE ALLOWED U/S 57(III) OF THE I .T. ACT. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE COUNSEL HAS ALSO CITED THE JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SETH R. DAIMIA VS. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 644 BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD 9. LEARNED CIT(A) ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH D ETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED AND NOTICED THAT OUT OF TOTAL DEDUC TION OF RS.18,86,445/- CLAIMED, ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,75,000/ - HAS BEEN PAID BY WAY OF CHEQUE AND BALANCE PAYMENT HAS B EEN MADE IN CASH. AS ASSESSEES COUNSEL ADMITTED THAT BI LLS AND VOUCHERS HAVE NOT BEEN KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEA RNED CIT(A) NOTICING THAT THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IS NOT A MENABLE TO VERIFICATION, RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 20% OF T HE TOTAL CLAIM AS NOT RELATABLE TO EARNING OF LOGO MONEY. IT IS AL SO NOTICED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF H AS ADDED 20% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED FROM ADVERTISEMENT INCOME. DISALLOWANCE AT 20% OF RS.18,86,445/- IE., RS.3,77,28 9/- WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING BALANCE OF THE AMOUNT. ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE DISALLOWANCE AND THE RE IS NO CROSS APPEAL ON THE ISSUE. REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFERENCE TO THE CIRCULAR OF BOARD WHICH IN PRINCIPLE ACCEPTED THAT PLAYE RS HAVE TO INCUR EXPENDITURE. EVEN THOUGH THE ALLOWANCE AT 75% OF RECEIPT BY THE CIRCULAR WAS WITHDRAWN DURING THE YEAR, CONSIDERING THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID ABOUT 45% OF THE A MOUNT BY WAY OF CHEQUE, THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CASH EXPENDITUR E WOULD WORK OUT ALMOST 40% OF THE AMOUNT PAID IN CASH. THEREFORE, KEEPING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MIND, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). ACC ORDINGLY, GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT, ITA.NO.194/HYD/2002 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD ITA.NO.46/HYD/2003 A.Y.1999-2000 & ITA.NO.225/HYD/2003 A.Y. 1999-2000 12. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS BY ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 08.10.2002. IN THE REVENUE APPEAL, REVENUE IS CONTESTING ONE ISSUE IN G ROUND NO.2 OF RESTRICTION OF DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS EXPENDITURE CLAIM ED AGAINST EARNING OF MATCH FEES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 57(III) OF THE I.T. ACT, WHEREAS, IN ASSESSEES APPEAL , ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED AND CONF IRMED BY THE CIT(A) IN GROUNDS NO. 2. GROUND NO.3 PERTAINS TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80RR WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED BY TH E A.O. AND LEARNED CIT(A). 13. ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE, THE FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS COST OF CRICKETING GEAR AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES FOR PRACT ICING AND PARTICIPATING IN VARIOUS TOURNAMENTS. A.O. DISALLOWE D THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.19,93,782/- BY SA YING THAT ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CRICKETERS SUCH AS D RESS, EQUIPMENT, COACHING, TRAINING, TRAVEL, STAY ETC., WER E LOOKED AFTER BY THE BCCI WHICH IS THE SUPREME BODY FOR CRICKET CONTROL IN INDIA. THE SENIOR CRICKETERS GET THEIR CHOICE OF WEAR AND EQUIPMENT. HENCE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT T HE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR PLAYING CRICKET U NDER THE AEGIS OF BCCI FOR THE COUNTRY. AO HAS FURTHER MENTION ED THAT THE EXAMINATION OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE EXPENDIT URE DOES NOT REVEAL EVEN A SINGLE ENTRY OF PAYMENT TOWARDS BUYIN G OF CRICKET EQUIPMENT. MOST OF THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCU RRED IN CASH. THE CASH VOUCHERS ALONG WITH BILLS ETC., WE RE NOT PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ENT IRE ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD EXPENDITURE OF RS.19,93,782/- HAS BEEN DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME. 14. LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UND ER : 10. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE FACTS NARRATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE YEAR THE APPELLANT RECEIVED FOLLOWING AMOUNTS TOWARDS PLAYING CRICKET MATCHES AND TOURNAMENTS IN INDIA AND OUTSIDE INDIA UNDER THE AEGIS OF THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA. 1. FOREIGN TOUR RS.15,82,715/- 2. RECEIPTS FOR CRICKET MATCHES PLAYED IN INDIA RS.5,23,390/- 3. ONE DAY INTERNATIONAL MATCHES IN INDIA RS.1,88,500/- 4. FEE FOR WRITING OF ARTICLES RS.3,00,000/- 5. PRIZE MONEY RECEIVED AS PER ENCLOSED SL. NO. IV. RS.6,19,067/- GIFTS RECEIVED AS PER ENCLOSED SL. NO. IV-A RS.23,517/- RS.6,42,584/- LESS: EXEMPTION AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 447/FN/ 199/66/(17)(AC) DT.22.1.86 RS.6,42,584/- -NIL- *LOGO MONEY RECEIVED THROUGH CRICKET CONTROL BOARD RS.27,53,454/- TOTAL RS.53,48,059/- LESS: EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING THE ABOVE INCOME RS.19,93,782/- BALANCE RS.33,54,277/- 11. BEFORE THE AO IT WAS EXPLAINED VIDE LETTER DATED 22/3/2002 THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.19,93,782/- HAS BEEN INCURRED TOWARDS PLAY EQUIPMENT LIKE BATS. GLOVES. PADS. SHOE- CAPS, PROTECTIVE GOGGLES ETC., AND ALSO TOWARDS PRACTICING IN THE NETS AND PARTICIPATING IN RANJI TROPHY, SOUTH ZONE AND NATIONAL TOURNAMENTS WHICH ARE WITNESSED BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE. THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE IS ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO PLAY FOR THE COUNTRY AND TO EARN F EES ETC., FROM BCCI. ALONG WITH THE LETTER, COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT SHOWING EXPENDITURE OF ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD RS.19,93,782/- WAS ENCLOSED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MAJOR PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CHEQUES AND THE BALANCE IN CASH. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT BCCI LOOKS AFTER THE PLAYERS AT THE TIME OF PLAYING OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MATCHES. THE DRESS, EQUIPMENT, COACHING, TRAINING, TRAVEL, STAY AND OTHER RELATED REQUIREMENTS ARE PROVIDED BY THE BCCI. IN OTHERWORDS, THE CRICKETERS DO NOT HAVE TO SPEND ANYTHING FROM THEIR POCKET. THE EXAMINATION OF LEDGER ACCOUNT REVEALED THAT THE FIRST EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ON 02.04.1998 AND ARE SPREAD OVER THE ENTIRE YEAR TILL 31.03.199. NORMALLY, THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD EITHER BE BEFORE OR AFTER A PARTICULAR MATCH OR TOURNAMENT. MOST OF THE EXPENSES ARE IN ROUND FIGURES OF RS.15,000/- PAID IN CASH. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PREPARED AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND THE CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF TAX. THE A.O. HAS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT NOT A SINGLE BILL/INVOICE/ VOUCHER WERE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. HENCE THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY PRIMARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF INVOICES/BILLS/VOUCHERS. THE APPELLANT, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED THAT IN ORDER TO PLAY NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LEV EL OF CRICKET EVERY PLAYER NEED TO PRACTICE AND TRAIN FOR LONG HOURS EACH DAY. THE PLAYERS HAVE TO TRAVEL TO DIFFERENT PLACES AND INCUR SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT TOWARDS TRAVEL, SPECIAL DIET, TRAINERS AND SUPPORT STAFF IN ADDITION TO BUYING EQUIPMENT ON CONTINUOUS BASIS. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT MAINTAIN PUCCA VOUCHERS DUE TO DEEP INVOLVEMENT IN THE GAME AND ALSO DUE TO PREVAILING CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE EQUIPMENT WAS ACQUIRED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF RS.19,93,782/-. THE APPELLANT IS A POPULAR CRICKETER AND WAS THE CAPTAIN OF INDIAN CRICKET TEAM FOR SEVERAL YEARS. THE A.O. IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN SAYING THAT NO EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED BY THE CRICKETER AND ALL THE EXPENSES ARE BORNE BY THE BCCI. BEFORE PARTICIPATING IN THE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL TEST MATCHES THE PLAYER HAS TO DO A ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD LOT OF PRACTICE IN WHICH HE HAS TO INCUR SOME EXPENDITURE ON TRAVELLING AND BUYING PLAY EQUIPMENT LIKE BATS, GLOVES, PADS, SHOES ETC., KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT MAJOR PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH WHICH ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY BILLS/VOUCHERS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IT WOUL D BE REASONABLE TO ALLOW 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AT RS.19,93,782/- I.E., RS.9,96,891/- AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS EARNING OF INCOME FROM TEST MATCHES. THE A.O. IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO ALLOW EXPENDITURE OF RS.9,96,891/- AS AGAINST RS.19,93,782/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 15. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED ON THE ALLOWANCE OF 50%, WHEREAS ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED ON THE RESTRICTION OF EXP ENDITURE TO 50%. 16. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE PARTLY AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WHILE ACC EPTING THAT A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF RS.19,93,782/- ON THE REASON THAT BEIN G A POPULAR CRICKETER AND WAS ALSO CAPTAIN OF INDIAN CRICKE T FOR SEVERAL YEARS NO EXPENDITURE WOULD BE INCURRED BY THE CRICKETER AND ALL EXPENSES WERE BORNE BY THE BCCI, LEARNED CIT(A), IN OUR VIEW, HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE AMOU NT TO 50% OF THE CLAIM. IN FACT, IN THE EARLIER YEAR, HE HAS EXAM INED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERED 2 0% OF THE AMOUNT ONLY TO BE DISALLOWED, WHICH WE HAVE CONFIRMED IN THE APPEAL ITA.194/HYD/2002. SINCE, ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED SUCH DISALLOWANCE IN EARLIER YEAR, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T IT IS REASONABLE TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 20% OF THE C LAIM AS IN EARLIER YEAR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) STANDS MODIFIED A ND CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWED SUBJECT TO DISALLOWANCE AT 20% OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.19,93,782/- I.E., RS.3,98,756/-. REVENU E GROUND ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD STANDS REJECTED AND ASSESSEES GROUND NO.2 STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 17. GROUND NO. 3 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IS WITH REFERENCE TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80RR AMOU NTING TO RS.40,00,197/- BEING 75% OF FOREIGN RECEIPTS OF RS.53,33,596/-. 18. THE ISSUE RELATES TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80RR AMOUNTING TO RS.40,00,197/- BEING 75% OF FOREIGN REMI TTANCES OF RS.53,33,596/-. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE RECEIV ED GROSS AMOUNT OF RS.96,33,596/- TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENT FOR ACTIN G IN AD-MOVIES FROM DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL ENTITIES PROMOTING SO FT DRINKS, SPORTS WEAR, TYRES ETC., THE GROSS AMOUNT INCLUDED A SUM OF RS.53,33,596/- RECEIVED BY WAY OF CONVERTIBLE F OREIGN EXCHANGE FROM THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES. A. REEBOK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED RS.44,90,320/- B. BRIDGESTONE TYRES RS. 8,43,276/- RS.53,33,596/- 19. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80RR AS A PROFESSIONAL ACTOR IN AD-FILMS AND NOT AS A SPORTSMAN. AS A CRICKETER FOR THE COUNTRY THE AS SESSEE GAINED POPULARITY WITH THE MASSES AND, THEREFORE, DECI DED TO ACT IN MOVIES, IN PARTICULAR AD-FILMS. HE HAS TAKEN CRASH COURSES IN ACTING TO POSITION HIMSELF IN THE AD-FILMS MARKET BY IMPROVING ACTING SKILLS AND TALENT AND ENHANCE STAR VALUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO ACT IN AD-FILM S FOR RAMOLENE SUITINGS, SG SPORTS KIT, PEPSI, DUNKANS TEA ETC., OBSERVING HIS POPULARITY AND SUCCESS IN AD-FILMS, CERT AIN FOREIGN COMPANIES L IKE REEBOK INTERNATIONAL SOUGHT HIS SERVICES FOR ACTING IN THEIR AD-FILMS. DURING THE YEAR M/S. REEBOK ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL, A SPORTS WEAR COMPANY PAID REMUNERATION FOR ACTING IN THEIR AD-FILMS. ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, ENTI TLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80RR OF THE I.T. ACT. THE A.O . DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT BEING A POPULAR CRICKET PLAYER HE RECEIVED OFFER FOR ACTIN G IN AD- FILMS FOR PROMOTING GOODS MANUFACTURED BY COMPANIES LIKE PEPSI FOODS LIMITED, REEBOK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND BRIDGESTONE TYRES. THE ASSESSEE BEING AN EMPLOYEE OF SB I CANNOT PURSUE ANOTHER PROFESSION. HENCE, ACTING IN AD-FI LMS BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PROFESSION SO AS T O ENTITLE HIM TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S.80RR OF THE I.T. A CT. THE AO HAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A PROFESSION AL ACTOR OR MODEL AND THEREFORE, AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY HIM FROM ACTING IN AD-MOVIES OF CERTAIN FOREIGN COMPANIES FOR PROMOTING T HEIR GOODS CANNOT BE TERMED AS AMOUNT RECEIVED IN EXERCISE OF HIS PROFESSION. THE A.O. HAS TREATED THE RECEIPTS FROM AD-MOVI ES AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' AND HAS DENIED THE CLAIM MADE U/S. 80RR OF THE I.T. ACT. 20. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTIONS AND CONFIRMED THE A.O. STAND BY STATING A S UNDER : 14. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE FACTS NARRATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN MY OPINION THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT U/S. 80RR CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE APPELLANT IS A POPULAR CRICKETER AND WAS THE CAPTAIN OF INDIAN CRICKET TEAM FOR SEVERAL YEARS. HE IS ALSO EMPLOYED AS AN OFFICER IN SBI. BEING A POPULAR CRICKETER, CERTAIN COMPANIES SOUGHT HIS SERVICES TO ACT IN THEIR AD- FILMS FOR PROMOTING GOODS MANUFACTURED BY THEM. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS A PROFESSIONAL ACTOR OR MODEL AS MENTIONED IN SEC.80RR WHICH READS AS UNDER : ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD S.80RR. DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME FROM FOREIGN SOURCES IN CERTAIN CASES - WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN INDIVIDUAL RESIDENT IN INDIA, BEING AN AUTHOR, PLAYWRIGHT, ARTIST, [MUSICIAN, ACTOR OR SPORTSMAN (INCLUDING AN ATHLETE)], INCLUDES ANY INCOME DERIVED BY HIM IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS PROFESSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR ANY PERSON NOT RESIDENT IN INDIA, [THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL, [A DEDUCTION FROM SUCH INCOME OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT OF SUCH INCOME, AS IS BROUGHT INTO INDIA BY, OR ON BEHALF OF, THE ASSESSEE IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OR WHERE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED (FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS, FOR REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL UNABLE TO DO SO WITHIN THE SAID PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, WITHIN SUCH FURTHER PERIOD AS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER MAY ALLOW IN THIS BEHALF : PROVIDED THAT NO DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES A CERTIFICATE, IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM, ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, CERTIFYING THAT THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CORRECTLY CLAIMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION.] 15. THE REMUNERATION RECEIVED FROM ACTING IN AD- FILMS OR CERTAIN COMPANIES BE TERMED AS INCOME DERIVED IN EXERCISE OF HIS PROFESSION. LAST YEAR THE APPELLANT CLAIMED HIMSELF AS A NON- PROFESSIONAL CRICKETER FOR CLAIMING CERTAIN GIFTS AND AWARDS AS EXEMPT IN VIEW OF BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.447 DATED 22.09.1986. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF BANGALORE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF GR VISWANATH VS. FIFTH INCOME TAX OFFICER REPORTED IN 29 ITD 142, THE C HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL CRICKETER AND THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED TOWARDS PRIZE MONEY, AWARDS AND GIFTS ETC., WERE HELD TO BE EXEMPT AS PER BOARDS CIRCULAR DATED 22.9.1986. WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE A NON- PROFESSIONAL CRICKETER HE CANNOT CLAIM HIMSELF TO ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD BE A PROFESSIONAL ACTOR OR A MODEL FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80RR OF THE I.T. ACT. CERTAIN FOREIGN COMPANIES SOUGHT HIS SERVICES TO ACT IN AD-MOVIES FOR PROMOTING THEIR GOODS JUST BECAUSE HE WAS A POPULAR CRICKETER AND NOT AS A PROFESSIONAL ACTOR OR A MODEL. HENCE, I HOLD THAT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80RR HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DENIED BY THE A.O. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 21. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS MISLEAD HIMSELF BY MIX-UP WITH HIS ROLE AS A CRICKETER AND HIS ROLE AS A MODEL. HE REFERRED TO THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) WH ICH HELD THAT AS A CRICKETER, ASSESSEE IS NOT A PROFESSIONA L CRICKETER. SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALSO TAKEN FOR THE ROLE AS A MO DEL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TO APPEAR IN ADVERTISEMENTS FOR WHICH HE HAS ENTERED IN TO VARIOUS CONTRACTS AND HAS TO FACE CAMERA . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS UNDERGONE SPECIAL TRAINING AND HE HAS TO BRING HIS CREATIVE TALENT FOR THE PRODUCT/ COMPANY ENGAGED HI M. NO DOUBT, BEING A SUCCESSFUL CRICKETER IT HAS ADDED TO HI S BRAND VALUE AS A MODEL BUT THE FACT IS THAT ASSESSEE HAD TO USE HIS OWN SKILLS AND CREATIVITY WHILE EARNING THE INCOME AS A PROFESSIONAL MODEL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RESTRICTION ON CONDUCT RULES OF THE BANK IS ONLY WITH REF ERENCE TO THE PLAYING CRICKET AND NOT FOR APPEARING IN ADVERTIS EMENTS OR AS A MODEL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A.O. HAS AL LOWED THE CLAIM IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. LEARNED COUNSE L RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SAC HIN R. TENDULKAR VS. ACIT, WHICH, INTURN, FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF AMITABH BACHCHAN VS. DCIT (2007) 12 SOT 95 (MUM.). 22. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AND CIT(A) AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HARSHA BOGLE 8 6 ITD ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD 714. HE DISTINGUISHED THE DECISION OF SACHIN TENDULKA R STATING THAT IN THAT CASE, SACHIN TENDULKAR HAS ACTED IN AD-F ILMS. THEREFORE, ON THOSE FACTS IT WAS GIVEN. WITH REFERENCE T O THE AMOUNTS IN A.Y. 1998-99 LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT T HIS ISSUE WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE A.O. AND PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY. HE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE A .O. AND CIT(A). 23. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND EXAMINED THE FACTS ON RECORD. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LEARNED CIT(A ) GOT CARRIED AWAY BY THE ROLE OF ASSESSEE AS CRICKETER. EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE MAY BE REPUTED CRICKETER, FOR ACTING IN T.V./ PRINT MEDIA, IT REQUIRES SPECIAL TALENT. EVENTHOUGH HE MAY NOT BE PROFESSIONAL CRICKETER, HE CAN PURSUE MODELLING AS A PROFESSIONAL. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE COORDI NATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SACHIN TENDULKAR WHO ALSO RECEIVED PROFESSIONAL INCOME FROM FOREIGN SOURCE FOR VARIOUS ADVERTISEMENTS, IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE. THERE I N ALSO, THE A.O. REJECTED THE CLAIM ON THE REASON THAT ASSESS EE WAS NOT A PROFESSIONAL CRICKETER AND INCOME FROM MODELLING ON ADVERTISEMENTS WAS NOT DERIVED FROM EXERCISE OF HIS PROFESSI ON. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SACHI N R. TENDULKAR (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE WHILE APPEARING IN ADVERTISEMENTS AND COMMERCIALS, HAD TO FACE THE LIGHTS AND CAMERA. AS A MODEL, THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO HIS WORK A DEGREE OF IMAGINATION, CREATIVITY AND SKILL TO ARRANGE ELEMENTS IN A MANNER THAT WOULD AFFECT HUMAN SENSES AND EMOTIONS AND TO HAVE AN AESTHETIC VALUE. NO DOUBT, BEING A SUCCESSFUL CRICKETER, IT HAD ADDED TO HIS BR AND VALUE AS A MODEL. BUT THE FACT REMAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO USE HIS OWN SKILLS, IMAGINATION AND CREATIVITY. EVERY PERSON OR FOR THAT MATTER EVERY ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD SPORTSMAN DOES NOT POSSESS THAT DEGREE OF TALENT OR SKILL OR CREATIVITY AND FACE THE LIGHTS AND CAMERA ETC ., THUS, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT WAS THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MODELLING AND APPEARING IN T.V . COMMERCIALS AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES COULD BE TERMED A S INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROFESSION OF AN ARTIST. AS ADMITTED BY THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE MORE THAN ONE PROFESSION. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO BA R ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ITS SECOND PROFESSION AS AN ARTIST APART FROM PLAYING CRICKET. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT WAS TO BE HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,92,31,211 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTED TO INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS PROFESSION AS AN ARTIST AND, THEREF ORE, ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80RR. 24. SINCE, FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SIMILAR, RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION, WE HAVE NO HESIT ATION IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 80RR OF THE I.T. ACT. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED AS THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFERENCE TO THE RECEIPT OF FOREIG N EXCHANGE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF 80RR OF THE ACT. 25. IN THE RESULT, ITA.NO.46/HYD/2003 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND ITA.NO.225/HYD/2003 OF ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ITA.NO.647/HYD/2004 A.Y. 2000-2001 : 26. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2004. IN THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUND NO.2 ON THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTIO N ON THE PRIZE MONEY OF RS.1,73,804/- AND IN GROUND NO.3 ABOU T THE CLAIM OF 80RR AMOUNTING TO RS.41,30,631/-. 27. WITH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM OF PRIZE MONEY, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE A.O. WHO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD ON THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE IS A PROFESSIOANAL CRICKETER WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED, WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE ORD ERS ON THE SAME ISSUE BY HIS PREDECESSOR. 28. THIS ISSUE WAS ALREADY CONSIDERED IN ITA.NO.194/HYD/2002 AGAINST REVENUE GROUND I.E., GROUNDS NO. 2 AND 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS THER EIN, WE ALLOW THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE AMOUNT OF PRIZE M ONEY IS EXEMPT AS ASSESSEE IS NOT PROFESSIONAL CRICKETER. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 29. GROUND NO.3 IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80RR. CONSEQUENT TO THE FINDI NG GIVEN IN ITA.NO.225/HYD/2003 AGAINST GROUND NO.3 THEREIN, WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80RR. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 30. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ITA.NO.647/HYD/2004 IS ALLOWED. ITA.NO.1040/HYD/2004 A.Y. 2001-2002 : 31. THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV, DATED 16.08.2004. GROUNDS NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAIN TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.9,50,000/- CLAIMED AGAINST THE INCOME ON LOGO MONEY OF RS.15,71,310/- ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. THIS ISSUE WAS RECURRING AND CIT(A) WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE PREDECESSOR ORDERS ON THE ISSUE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO DISCUSSED IN EARL IER TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E., A.Y. 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 AN D CONSISTENT WITH THE STAND TAKEN THEREIN, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, SUBJECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF THE CLA IM AS ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD WAS DONE IN THOSE YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,90,000/- WAS DISALLOWED AND BALANCE AMOUNT WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUNDS NO. 2 AND 3 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 32. GROUNDS NO. 4 AND 5 PERTAINS TO THE CLAIM OF 80RR ON THE INCOMES RECEIVED AS A PROFESSIONAL ACTOR IN CONVE RTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO RECURRING AND CONSIS TENT WITH THE STAND TAKEN IN THE EARLIER YEARS, WE HOLD TH AT ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AND ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 33. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ITA.NO.1040/HYD/2004 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 34. TO SUM-UP, ITA.NO.194/HYD/2002 AND ITA.NO.46/HYD/2003 OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND ITA.NO.225/HYD/2003 AND ITA.NO.1040/HYD/2004 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED, ITA.NO.647/HYD/2004 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.01.2014. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATE 31 ST JANUARY, 2014 VBP/- ITA.NO.194/H/02, 46/H/03, 225/H/03, 647/H/04 & 1040/H/04 SHRI MOHD. AZARUDDIN, HYDERABAD COPY TO : 1. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4, HYDERABAD 2. SHRI MOHD. AZHARUDDIN, PLOT NO. 1339, ROAD NO.67, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD 3. CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD 4. CIT - (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT, A BENCH, HYDERABAD.