Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.