In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Mukta Arts Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: We have perused the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 2nd May, 2001 and also the question of law sought to be raised in the above appeal which reads as under: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in holding that the...
Decision: Hence the above appeal is totally misconceived and therefore, stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
Income Tax Appeal No.584 of 2001
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant
vs.
M/s Mukta Arts Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant.
Mr.K.Shivram with Mr.A.R.Singh i/b Vima Dalal and Co. for
respondent.
CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ.
25th August, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant
and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. We have perused the order of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal dated 2nd May, 2001 and also the question of law
sought to be raised in the above appeal which reads as
under:
"(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was
justified in holding that the cost of production of
the abandoned film "DEVAA" is trading loss.?
(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
-2-
of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was
justified in not appreciating the fact that the
character of negative film which cannot be
exhibited is that of the capital nature and not as
stock-in-trade?"
3. After hearing the parties for some time, the learned
Counsel for the appellant concedes that there is no
question of law involved in the above appeal and the
appeal is actually misconceived and especially in view of
the fact that the film in question was admittedly not
released and hence it is merely a stock in trade and there
is no question of the same being capital asset.
Mr.Shivram also pointed out that the Assessing Officer has
given effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income
Tax. Hence the above appeal is totally misconceived and
therefore, stands dismissed.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)
(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)
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.