An income tax problem that was thought to have been closed has cropped up again for music composer A.R. Rahman.
The Madras High Court has ordered notice to Rahman on an appeal made by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that went in favour of the music composer.
- Bollywood reacts to Kangana Ranaut's property under attack in ‘Pakistan occupied Mumbai’
- Bollywood: On filmmaker Anurag Kashyap's birthday, here are 7 movies of his to watch
- In photos: Rhea Chakraborty’s arrest divides Bollywood
- From Sanjay Dutt to Ranbir Kapoor, Bollywood celebrities who went public with addiction struggle
The matter pertains to the assessment year 2011-12 and his declared income of Rs159.8 million.
Rahman had declared in his return a total income of about Rs159.8 million for assessment year 2011-12 and the same was accepted by the Income Tax Department in 2014.
However, the assessment was reopened stating that about Rs5.4 million and Rs34.7 million received from Photon Kathas Production and the UK based Lebara Mobile were not assessed.
Rahman had clarified that Rs34.7 million was paid by Lebara Mobile to A.R. Rahman Foundation (ARRF) and the entity was taxed separately.
As Lebara Mobile contributed to the Foundation, Rahman agreed to compose caller tunes for the company for three years.
The income tax department accepted Rahman's explanation and closed the reassessment in 2016.
But in 2018, the Principal Commissioner asked Rahman as to why the 2016 reassessment order should not be set aside as the payment of Rs34.7 million was for music composer's professional service.
The composer approached the ITAT which ruled in favour of Rahman saying the said money was assessed in the hands of the Foundation.
The Foundation had also got Home Ministry's approval for the contribution made by Lebara Mobile.
The income tax department has gone to the High Court against the ITAT order stating it would not have objected had the composer paid tax on the amount and transferred the sum to the Foundation.
The department contended that the money paid by the foreign company is for his professional service while the Foundation enjoys tax exemptions.