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)
How AI is Rewriting India’s Permanent Establishment (PE) Rulebook: Key Takeaways
Traditional PE rules are under pressure. Historically, a foreign company became taxable in India only if it had a physical presen...
-
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 issues before the Bench are - Whether when an expenditure is claimed to have been incurred by an assessee for promotion of his busine...
-
The Reserve Bank of India has introduced a new framework governing export and import transactions under FEMA. These regulations are effectiv...
-
The posting had been move to another website. Please click the link below to get the access of the same. https://taxofindia.wordpress....
-
THE issues before the Bench are - Whether no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is warranted even if assessee makes false claim of Sec 80IA benefits ...
-
The overall effective tax rate of a U.S. multinational corporation may have significant impact on the value of its stock. Therefore, it ...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Supreme Court (SC) [1] on whether a show cause notice (SCN) under Section 74 of the ...
-
What is a Digital Signature? Answer: A digital signature authenticates electronic documents in a similar manner a handwritten signatur...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Gujarat High Court (HC)1 on the taxability of corporate guarantee provided by the Petitio...
-
Vide Notification issued u/s 139(1), the CBDT has extended the ‘due date’ for filing of returns of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 ...
No comments:
Post a Comment