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)
No Permanent Establishment Unless Proven by the Revenue
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench) recently in the case of SAIC clarified an important principle in international taxation: th...
-
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...
-
The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) released the Draft Income Tax Rules, 2026 on February 7, 2026. It has invited suggestions and opi...
-
These instructions are guidelines for filling the particulars in this Return Form. In case of any doubt, please refer to relevant provisi...
-
The posting had been move to another website. Please click the link below to get the access of the same. https://taxofindia.wordpress....
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (CESTAT) [1] . The issue invo...
-
An eminent concern within the GST framework pertains to the entitlement of Input Tax Credit (ITC) concerning expenditures associated with In...
-
Section 68 -Cash credits Section 69 -Unexplained investments Section 69A - Unexplained money, etc Section 69B -Amount of investme...
-
On payment of Contractor, Publisher, Ad-Service Provider etc. above Rs. 20000/- in the financial year, then the TDS is must be deducted u...
-
Anna Covaco is trying to sell her ancestral property - a piece of land worth nearly Rs 10 crores in today's market. Being a senior cit...
-
PENSION SCHEME IN CASE OF AN E MPLOYEE JOINING CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYER ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,2004 New pension s che...
No comments:
Post a Comment