TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The assessee claimed that no capital gain was chargeable on receipt from transfer of trademark as there was no cost of acquisition. However, the tribunal held that the assessee had incurred cost for registration of the trademark, making it a capital asset. Therefore, the transfer of trademark was chargeable to tax under the head 'capital gains' as a short-term capital gain. The tribunal rejected the revenue authorities' contention of treating it as business receipt. The tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction of provision for employee leave encashment, following the Supreme Court's decision. It also allowed the assessee's claim for capital loss on surrender of land to DDA, which was earlier disallowed. Regarding the penalty, the tribunal held that merely rejecting the assessee's claims, which were debatable, does not automatically attract penalties.
The assessee claimed that no capital gain was chargeable on receipt from transfer of trademark as there was no cost of acquisition. However, the tribunal held that the assessee had incurred cost for registration of the trademark, making it a capital asset. Therefore, the transfer of trademark was chargeable to tax under the head 'capital gains' as a short-term capital gain. The tribunal rejected the revenue authorities' contention of treating it as business receipt. The tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction of provision for employee leave encashment, following the Supreme Court's decision. It also allowed the assessee's claim for capital loss on surrender of land to DDA, which was earlier disallowed. Regarding the penalty, the tribunal held that merely rejecting the assessee's claims, which were debatable, does not automatically attract penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
