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)
CBDT issues second round of frequently asked questions in relation to Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024
This Tax Alert summarizes Circular No. 19/2024 dated 16 December 2024 (VSV 2- December Circular) issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax...
-
PCIT vs. The Executor of Estate of Late Smt. Manjula A. Shah (Bombay High Court) S. 50C Capital Gains: The valuation of the stamp autho...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) [1] on availability of CENVAT Credit on mobile towers and pre-fabrica...
-
IFRS and US GAAP - Similarities and Differences What is IFRS? And what is GAAP? The main difference between IFRS and US GAAP is that G...
-
Madras HC reverses ITAT's order, grants deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) to assessee (a society engaged in the business of banking and provi...
-
SC dismisses assessee-company’s SLP challenging Bombay HC order upholding re-assessment initiation (beyond 4 yrs period) based on a special...
-
SC dismisses Revenue’s SLP challenging Bombay HC order in case of assessee (belonging to Lodha group of companies engaged in real estate bu...
-
Claiming a foreign tax credit (FTC) in Australia allows companies to offset foreign taxes paid on income earned overseas against their Aust...
-
HC allows HDFC Bank’s writ petition, quashes AO’s order and subsequent reference to TPO alleging that certain related party transactions [p...
-
Delhi ITAT deletes Rs. 1558.57 cr. capital gains addition on Telenor India for AY 2014-15, holds that set off of non-refundable entry fee p...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Bombay High Court (HC)1 on admissibility of input tax credit (ITC) w.r.t GST on advance p...
No comments:
Post a Comment