Tax treatment of self-generated trademarks and goodwill turned on absence of cost basis and prospective statutory amendment.

Consideration for assignment of self-generated trademarks, brand name and goodwill was treated as outside capital gains for the relevant year because the assets had no ascertainable cost of acquisition and the statutory amendment bringing trademarks and brand names within section 55(2)(a) applied prospectively from 1 April 2002. On the facts, the receipt was also not taxable as business income under section 28(iv) or as a deemed benefit under section 41(1). The claim for short-term capital loss was upheld on the basis of binding precedent, and the Tribunal's view was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the consideration received for assignment of self-generated trademarks and brand name along with goodwill was chargeable as capital gains or as business income. (ii) Whether the claim for short-term capital loss of Rs. 2,50,45,545 was allowable.

Issue (i): Whether the consideration received for assignment of self-generated trademarks and brand name along with goodwill was chargeable as capital gains or as business income.

Analysis: The assignment deed showed transfer of 22 self-generated trademarks for consideration of Rs. 29.10 crores, and the business itself was not wholly transferred. The governing principle from the authority on goodwill and self-generated assets is that where the asset has no ascertainable cost of acquisition, the capital gains computation machinery fails unless the statute specifically brings that asset within the charging framework. The amendment inserting trademarks and brand name within section 55(2)(a) operated prospectively from 01.04.2002, while the transfer in question was in AY 2001-02. On the facts, the receipt could not be taxed as business income under section 28(iv) or as a deemed benefit under section 41(1), and the valuation method adopted did not alter the character of the transfer.

Conclusion: The receipt from transfer of the trademarks was not taxable as business income or as capital gains for the relevant year, and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for short-term capital loss of Rs. 2,50,45,545 was allowable.

Analysis: The question stood covered by binding precedent on the treatment of the claimed loss, and the Revenue did not dispute the applicability of that authority.

Conclusion: The short-term capital loss claim was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The common substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue, the Tribunal's view was sustained, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For a self-generated intangible asset transferred before the statutory amendment making trademarks and brand names expressly taxable, where no ascertainable cost of acquisition exists, capital gains cannot be levied; the receipt also cannot be brought to tax as business income merely because it arises from assignment of the asset.

---