AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—Questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue for the asst. yr. 1985-86 are:
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expression ''entire consideration'' occurring in Clause 3 of the agreement meant only the consideration relating to the completed pictures and excluding the part payments received in respect of ongoing pictures?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that without prejudice to the answer to the above question, whether the Tribunal was right in further holding that the term ''gross receipts'' occurring in the same clause did not mean the gross realisation of the firm during the year, but only the realisation attributable to the completed pictures ignoring the part receipts for ongoing pictures?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 145 of the IT Act, 1961, does not apply to the facts of the case?"
Questions similar to these were considered by this Court in respect of the same assessee for another assessment year in Tax Case No. 190 of 1997, decided on 22nd Nov., 2001 and the question was answered in favour of assessee. These questions are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.