The Director Of Income Tax v. M/S. Warner Bros
High Court
17 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Director Of Income Tax v. M/S. Warner Bros
Date of order
17 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Director Of Income Tax v. M/S. Warner Bros, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4648 OF 2007
ALONGWITH
The Director of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Warner Bros. ... Respondent
Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Mr. Balkrishna Jhaveri for the Respondent.
P.C.
. There is delay of 403 days.
. The Revenue has come in appeal on the following
question of law :
"On the facts and in the circumstances of
the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal
has erred in directing the Assessing Officer
to compute income @ 25% of receipts drawing
strength from a settlement between Motion
Pictures Exports Association of America and
Central Board of Direct Taxes in 1987
without appreciating that such settlement
was valid only upto Assessment Year
1986-87?"
. On behalf of the Assessee, the learned counsel
draws our attention to the assessment orders passed for the assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-04 were the very issue which arises here was considered and
has been accepted by the Assessment Officer. No
steps have been taken by the Revenue against the
said order.
. Our attention is also invited to the judgment of
the Special Bench in Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Vs. Warner Brothers (FE) Inc. (2006) 282 ITR (AT)
90 (Mumbai) (SB) where though it is accepted that
the settlement was valid till the year 1986-87, none
the less the income has been computed at the rate of
25% on receipts.
. Even otherwise, the learned counsel points out
that the question as framed is a question of fact
and does not give rise to a question of
law.
. Considering the cause shown, in so far as the
Motion is concerned, it does not amount to
sufficient cause. Hence, Motion along with appeal
dismissed.
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, 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.