https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394552 The appeal filed by the Revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 was dismissed due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 50 lakhs. The reopening of assessment beyond four years was rejected as negligence in disclosing material facts was not proven. Expenditure for registration of a trademark was considered a capital asset, with depreciation allowed. The disallowance of expenditure under section 14A was remitted for further examination. The exemption claimed under section 10B required re-examination based on profit considerations. The lower authorities' orders were set aside, and issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. en-us Wed, 05 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Apr 2020 12:38:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394552 The appeal filed by the Revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 was dismissed due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 50 lakhs. The reopening of assessment beyond four years was rejected as negligence in disclosing material facts was not proven. Expenditure for registration of a trademark was considered a capital asset, with depreciation allowed. The disallowance of expenditure under section 14A was remitted for further examination. The exemption claimed under section 10B required re-examination based on profit considerations. The lower authorities' orders were set aside, and issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 05 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394552