Case LawHigh Court › Itta/176/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itta/176/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - I v. M/S. Aditya Music India (P) Ltd

High Court 10 Jul 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/176/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - I v. M/S. Aditya Music India (P) Ltd
Date of order
10 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/176/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - I v. M/S. Aditya Music India (P) Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Sengupta) This appeal is intended to be preferred against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated08.12.2011 in relation to the assessment year 2006- 2007, on the following suggested questions of law: 1.Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal iscorrect in law in ho...

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.176 OF 2012 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-I Hyderabad ..... Appellant AND M/s. Aditya Music India (P) Ltd.,Narayanguda, Hyderabad. .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) This appeal is intended to be preferred against thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated08.12.2011 in relation to the assessment year 2006- 2007, on the following suggested questions of law: 1.Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal iscorrect in law in holding that theassessee is entitled for deduction of theexpenditue of Rs.4,44,27,000/- onacquisition of copyrights as revenueexpenditure? 2.The ITAT ought not to have ignoredthe specific provisions of law inexplanation 32(1) wherein theexpenditure on copyrights is recognizedas capital expenditure and not asrevenue expenditure.? We have heard the learned counsel for theappellant and we have gone through the judgment andorder (which is xerox copy of the certified true copy) ofthe learned Tribunal. We are of the view that this matterdoes not require any interference of this Court as thelearned Tribunal has followed its earlier order dated4.12.2008 in ITA No. 1416/Hyd/2008 in the case of M/s.Aditya Music (India) Private Limited and ITA No.1417/Hyd./2008 in the case of M/s. Supreme RecordingCompany Private Limited in rendering the impugnedjudgment and order. It is not the case of the Revenuethat the aforesaid two maters have been carried inappeal or the decision therein was upset by any forum.In view of the consistent views, we do not like tointerfere with the same. Consequently, we dismissed the appeal. No orderas to costs. ______________________Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. July 10, 2013MAS __________G.Rohini, J.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan