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)
Karnataka High Court ruling - International Worker provisions under the Provident Fund law held to be unconstitutional and arbitrary
On 25 April 2024, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka delivered a judgement (W.P. No.18486/2012 and others) striking down the special prov...
-
Particulars in Part 1 and Part 2 of Step-2 of registration form are required to be exactly the same as reported in the TDS statement. Plea...
-
1. Introduction: Every trust/charitable society/ NGO that wishes to claim the tax exemption benefits has to file Form 10A to seek fresh re...
-
LEASE-DEED (A brief Introduction) Lease defined. A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, mad...
-
NECESSITY : Sometimes, in view of the expansion of the business, multiple increase in turnover and need for getting finances from the ...
-
Filing income tax returns (ITR) within the specified timelines under the Income-tax Act is not just a legal obligation but also crucial fo...
-
Earlier this year, the Mauritius Government approved the amendment to the India – Mauritius tax treaty, aligning it with the proposal of th...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent instruction issued by the SEZ Division, Department of Commerce, clarifying various concerns relating t...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Delhi High Court (HC) [1] dealing with the issue of denial of input tax credit (ITC) ...
-
Section 17(5)(c) and (d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, blocks input tax credit for works contract services, goods or serv...
-
Introduction The law relating to companies is laid down in Companies Act, 2013 and the rules made thereunder and t...
No comments:
Post a Comment