Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Transfer of Trademarks: Assessable as Capital Gains, No Tax Liability

        Trent Brands Ltd. Versus Income-tax Officer, Co. Ward 16(3), New Delhi

        Trent Brands Ltd. Versus Income-tax Officer, Co. Ward 16(3), New Delhi - [2009] 32 SOT 34 (DELHI) Issues Involved:
        1. Taxability of profits arising from the transfer of trademarks.
        2. Classification of the profits as capital gains or business income.
        3. Determination of the cost of acquisition of trademarks.
        4. Allowability of stamp duty as a deduction.
        5. Prematurity of penalty proceedings under sections 271-D, 271-E, and 271(1)(c).
        6. Interest under section 234B.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Taxability of Profits Arising from the Transfer of Trademarks:
        The assessee contended that the profits from the transfer of trademarks should be considered as capital receipts not liable to tax. The CIT(A) held that the profits arising from the transfer of trademarks are assessable under the head 'Capital Gains' as long-term or short-term capital gains, depending on the period of holding by the appellant and its holding company. The tribunal upheld this view, stating that the transfer of trademarks and designs by the assessee to Hindustan Lever Ltd. for Rs. 110.05 crores is a transfer of a capital asset. The tribunal further clarified that the cost of acquisition and improvement of these trademarks and designs in the hands of the previous owner, Trent Ltd., is indeterminable, and hence, no long-term capital gain tax liability can be levied on the assessee.

        2. Classification of the Profits as Capital Gains or Business Income:
        The revenue argued that the profits should be taxed as business income. However, the CIT(A) and the tribunal held that the business of the assessee was not to deal in trademarks and designs but to earn royalty income by licensing them. Therefore, the profits from the transfer of these trademarks and designs are assessable under the head 'Capital Gains.'

        3. Determination of the Cost of Acquisition of Trademarks:
        The CIT(A) held that the cost of acquisition of these trademarks cannot be taken at 'no cost' and determined the cost of acquisition to be Rs. 79.53 crores, which was the amount paid by the assessee to Trent Ltd. The tribunal noted that the cost of acquisition of the trademarks and designs in the hands of the previous owner, Trent Ltd., is indeterminable as these were self-generated assets. Consequently, no long-term capital gain tax liability can be levied on the assessee. However, if any trademark or design was registered within 36 months preceding May 1998, it would be treated as a short-term capital asset, and the Assessing Authority would be at liberty to levy short-term capital gain as per the provisions of the Act.

        4. Allowability of Stamp Duty as a Deduction:
        The assessee claimed a deduction for stamp duty of Rs. 1.10 crores. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, and the tribunal agreed, stating that the expenditure had not been incurred and thus was not allowable as a deduction under section 48(1), which allows deductions for 'expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer.'

        5. Prematurity of Penalty Proceedings under Sections 271-D, 271-E, and 271(1)(c):
        The CIT(A) held that the grounds of appeal related to the initiation of penalty under sections 271-D and 271-E of the Act are premature and dismissed these grounds. The tribunal did not find it necessary to address these grounds further as they were not pressed by the assessee.

        6. Interest under Section 234B:
        The assessee contended that interest leviable under section 234B should be restricted to tax payable on the returned income. The tribunal noted that this issue is consequential in nature and would depend on the final determination of the tax liability.

        Conclusion:
        The tribunal partly allowed the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The profits from the transfer of trademarks were held to be assessable under the head 'Capital Gains,' and the cost of acquisition in the hands of the previous owner was deemed indeterminable, leading to no long-term capital gain tax liability. The claim for stamp duty deduction was disallowed, and the penalty proceedings were deemed premature. The issue of interest under section 234B was left as consequential.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found