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)
Bombay High Court Clarifies Tax Exemption Eligibility for Venture Capital Funds
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that a Venture Capital Fund (VCF) registered with SEBI is entitled to claim ...
-
Slump sale is transfer of one or more business undertakings for a lump sum consideration, without assigning individual values to the each...
-
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...
-
Facts Centrica India Offshore Private Limited (CIO), an Indian Company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Centrica Plc, UK Centrica Plc a...
-
The Tax Audit season has started and it’s the time when the Assessees rush to their Chartered Accountants (CA) to get their Tax Audit d...
-
SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs. ITSC (Delhi High Court) The assessee entered into a scheme of arrangement u/s 391-394 of the Compani...
-
Facts The taxpayer, a partnership firm, derived income from the business of handling and transport of ship containers, customs clearing a...
-
M/s. Alpha Projects Society P. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) In AY 2005-06, the assessee made payments to contractors & for professi...
-
01. TDS u/s 194J is required to be done for Royalty also w.e.f 13-7-2006. 02. Royalty had been defined under explanation 2 of se...
-
F.No.354/66/2011-TRU Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs...
-
M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam Special Bench) The assessee incurred brokerage expenses of Rs.38....
No comments:
Post a Comment