The assessee being aggrieved filed an appeal before the CIT Appeals .
Being aggrieved against the order passed by the CIT Appeals , Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed with certain clarifications.
105/1999, rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 260 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short the Act .
The Assessing Officer allowed the claim of amortization.
The revenue thereafter filed an appeal under Section 260 of the Act in the High Court.
It appears that in the first film the assessee incurred heavy loss and to make up that loss the assessee ventured to produce the second film.
Thereafter, the Assessing Officer implemented the directions issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax by passing a fresh order under Section 143 3 withdrawing the benefit of carry forward of amortization expenses granted to the assessee.
The respondent assessee for short the assessee is a film producer.
It was the finding of the appellate authority that the amortization expenses relating to the second year would have to be allowed separately while companyputing the income for the next year and number at the time of companyputation of the income for the current year.
Appeal filed against the aforesaid order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for short the Tribunal was dismissed.
The assessee had claimed amortization expenses in respect of the two films, namely, Ex Kannikcodi and ii Santhwanam.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.
In his income tax return for the assessment year 1992 93, the assessee claimed the benefit of carry forward of Rs.39,43,830/ as amortization expenses.
CIT Appeals accepted the appeal.
7750 OF 2002 BHAN, J. With the leave of the Court the Revenue has filed the present appeal, against the judgment and order dated 27th November, 2001 of the High Court of Kerala in ITA No.
