-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 & CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 25th August, 2008 25th August, 2008 25th August, 2008 P.C. 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.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)