Delhi HC dismisses Revenue’s appeal, allows depreciation on the intellectual property rights (IPR) acquired and purchased by assessee co. from Monsanto India Limited during AY 2010-11; HC notes that the IPRs purchased by assessee included trademarks, which were used for the purpose of its trading business, in advertising/sales promotion/marketing; Rejects Revenue’s stand that depreciation was not allowable as the capital asset in form of intellectual property rights was not put to use for manufacturing activities; HC remarks that “This cannot be a ground and reason to hold that the assessee had not ‘put to use’ the intellectual property rights assets in the year in question.”; HC clarifies that “Mere purchase of the products, from third party or the fact that assessee was not engaged in manufacturing activity, would not make any difference.”, moreover observes that Revenue did not dispute cost of acquisition, ownership and nature of IPRs acquired.:HC
Thursday, 9 August 2018
HC : Allows IPR depreciation to trading co.despite not ‘put-to-use’ for manufacturing activities
Delhi HC dismisses Revenue’s appeal, allows depreciation on the intellectual property rights (IPR) acquired and purchased by assessee co. from Monsanto India Limited during AY 2010-11; HC notes that the IPRs purchased by assessee included trademarks, which were used for the purpose of its trading business, in advertising/sales promotion/marketing; Rejects Revenue’s stand that depreciation was not allowable as the capital asset in form of intellectual property rights was not put to use for manufacturing activities; HC remarks that “This cannot be a ground and reason to hold that the assessee had not ‘put to use’ the intellectual property rights assets in the year in question.”; HC clarifies that “Mere purchase of the products, from third party or the fact that assessee was not engaged in manufacturing activity, would not make any difference.”, moreover observes that Revenue did not dispute cost of acquisition, ownership and nature of IPRs acquired.:HC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
GST Not Leviable on Transfer of Leasehold Rights of MIDC Plots: SC Dismisses Revenue’s SLP
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a Bombay High Court (...
-
· Legal Framework: Section 171 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides the legal framework for the partition of a Hindu Undivided...
-
New utility for generation of Form 16A in pdf format provided by https://www.tdscpc.gov.in is very light and is sized only 8.43 MB while ...
-
1. Introduction Cross-border investment structures often employ intermediate holding companies in jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands. A c...
-
A new website launched for TDS related matters www.tdscpc.gov.in TRACES – T DS R econciliation A nalysis and C orrection E nabling S yste...
-
Issue before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Whether the phrase “paid up capital and general reserves” should be defined as “Ne...
-
Introduction Employee welfare is a cornerstone of corporate responsibility, and gratuity forms a critical part of the social security benefi...
-
Facts Saptarshi Ghosh (the tax payer) was a salaried employee of TCS Limited (employer), an Indian company. He was on deputation to the U...
-
Selling a property can trigger a significant tax liability in the form of capital gains tax. However, the Income-tax Act, 1961, allows you...
-
In the complex landscape of India’s Goods and Services Tax (GST), the tax treatment of non-compete fees has emerged as a critical area f...
-
The newly enacted Income Tax Act, 2025, marks a significant step toward simplification by consolidating multiple presumptive taxation sche...
No comments:
Post a Comment