Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (4.93 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Mediworld Publications Pvt. Ltd. on 5 April, 2011

Mova Consultants Private Ltd., Chennai vs Assessee on 8 June, 2012

:- 22 -: I.T.A.Nos. 1563 & 1866/10 Thus, in view of provisions of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, the said assets were clearly capital assets of the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, the consideration received on transfer of the said was capital receipt in the hands of the assessee and was liable to be assessed under the head 'capital gains'. Our above view also finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Mediworld Publications (P) Ltd, [2011] 337 ITR 178 (Del) where it was held that once it is accepted that the brand names, trademarks, copy right and goodwill were sold/transferred by the assessee to the transferee, it would clearly be a case of sale of capital asset and the gain therefore, would be computed as capital gains and not as business profits u/s 28(va). We, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to treat the income arising out of transfer of brand names, trademarks and drug licences etc. for the consideration of ` 9 crores as assessable under the head 'capital gains'. Therefore, these grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Novartis Healthcare P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 30 April, 2015

In the latest judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of "CIT vs. Mediworld Publications Pvt. Ltd." (supra) the issue of business income vis-à-vis capital gain on transfer of trade mark, copy right etc. fell for consideration of their lordship and after considering the various relevant provisions of the Act including section 2(14), section 2(11) as well as section 28(va) and 55(2A) of the Act, it was observed and held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Sunil Goyal, Noida vs Ito, New Delhi on 26 November, 2019

9. The fact that Section 28 (va) has no application in the facts of the present case is clear both from the language of that provision and also xhe explanation and the proviso thereto. The judgement of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Mediworld Publications Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 244 CTR 387 (Del.) has analysed the scope of Section 28(va) in the context of sale of shares and held that the long term capital gain on sale of those assets cannot be disregarded and the income there from cannot be brought to tax as business income u/s.28(va) - Para 10 &11.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Swaws Credit Corporation India (P) ... vs Assessee on 21 October, 2016

(v) CIT vs. Mediworld Publication (2011) 337 ITR 178 (Del) The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the contention that the amount of Rs.4 Crore component should also be treated as intangible asset and depreciation to be allowed on the same. The alternate ground of allowing the claim of deferred revenue expenditure was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) stating that there is specific submission and there is no provision 4 ITA.No.24/Hyd/2013 SWAWS Credit Corporation India (P) Limited, Secunderabad.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Wintac Ltd., on 19 September, 2013

The Revenue challenged the order of tribunal in this appeal contending that the findings of the Appellate Tribunal is contrary to the facts. As per the agreement dated 30-06-2000, the assessee has received in all Rs.40.00 crores, i.e. for the sale of technical knowhow, the assessee has received Rs.25.00 crores, Rs.11.00 crores towards sale of brand, and Rs.4.00 crores towards non-competition fee. The finding of the Appellate Tribunal is that consideration of Rs.25.00 crores received is for not carrying out certain activities of business in Pharmaceutical goods is contrary to the facts. Technical knowhow is an intangible asset. Under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, it is a capital asset for the purpose of depreciation and exigible to tax under the capital gain. Sri.Thirumalesh relied upon the judgments reported in (2011) 237 CTR 227 (Madras) in the case of INDO TECH ELECTRIC COMPANY v/s DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and (2011) 337 ITR 178 (Delhi) in the case of THE 39 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v/s MEDIWORLD PUBLICATION PRIVATE LIMITED.
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1