https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758179 The ITAT Delhi held that transfer of trademark constitutes a capital asset under section 2(14), making the transaction chargeable as short-term capital gains since registration costs were previously claimed as business expenditure. The tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that no capital gains were chargeable due to absence of acquisition cost, distinguishing the case from B.C. Srinivasa Setty precedent. The tribunal allowed deduction for employee leave encashment provisions following Bharat Earthmovers Ltd. ruling, permitted capital loss claim on land surrender to DDA for the relevant assessment year, and deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) as the disputed claims were debatable matters not attracting automatic penalties. en-us Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Sep 2024 09:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758179 The ITAT Delhi held that transfer of trademark constitutes a capital asset under section 2(14), making the transaction chargeable as short-term capital gains since registration costs were previously claimed as business expenditure. The tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that no capital gains were chargeable due to absence of acquisition cost, distinguishing the case from B.C. Srinivasa Setty precedent. The tribunal allowed deduction for employee leave encashment provisions following Bharat Earthmovers Ltd. ruling, permitted capital loss claim on land surrender to DDA for the relevant assessment year, and deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) as the disputed claims were debatable matters not attracting automatic penalties. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758179