https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417455 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The additional evidence supporting ownership of the brand, "Essar," was deemed crucial and admissible. The brand was considered a capital receipt, not taxable income under Section 56(1) and Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also ruled against the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii) and Section 28(iv) to tax the brand value. Additionally, the Tribunal supported the assessee's cash method of accounting for license fees, emphasizing the right to choose under Section 145 of the Act. en-us Thu, 25 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Jan 2022 22:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417455 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The additional evidence supporting ownership of the brand, "Essar," was deemed crucial and admissible. The brand was considered a capital receipt, not taxable income under Section 56(1) and Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also ruled against the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii) and Section 28(iv) to tax the brand value. Additionally, the Tribunal supported the assessee's cash method of accounting for license fees, emphasizing the right to choose under Section 145 of the Act. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417455