Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)The Dcit, Spl. Range 18 vs Aakrosh Investment And Leasing P. Ltd. on 7 August, 2003
In this case there is no dispute that the assessee company has transferred the technical know-how or any other advantage to the joint venture comprising the assessee company and MR. Under similar circumstances this Tribunal, to which one of us the Accountant Member was a party, has held in the case of DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. (2007) (106 TTJ 388) held that the assessee company surrendered all its trade names, customers list, suppliers list, licenses, permits, approval under an agreement with another company, and the latter having continued the business using its own logo and trade names, there was no intention to acquire the goodwill of the assessee and therefore, the non-compete fee received by the assessee cannot be treated as goodwill and it is not taxable as income. The recourse to sec.55(2) can be made only from the Asst. year 1998-99 in respect of consideration received for the transfer thereof, which includes extinguishment or curtailment of such right. In this connection the ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the CBDT Instruction No.1964 dated 17-03-1999. The appeal before us for the Asst. year 1996-97 and on this count also we are of the opinion that the AO was not justified in charging goodwill as taxable income. On the above reasoning and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are in full agreement with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that this compensation was not at all taxable."
Cloth Traders (P) Ltd., Etc vs Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax, ... on 4 May, 1979
Index : Yes/No (R.S.,J) (S.V.,J) Internet:Yes/No 04.03.2015 sl To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XI, Chennai. 3. The Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range VI, Chennai. R.SUDHAKAR,J. AND S.VIMALA,J. sl Tax Case (Appeal) No.316 of 2008 04.03.2015
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nagpur vs Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji And Others on 7 October, 1958
In the present case, compensation received under Non-Competition Agreement became taxable as a capital receipt and not as a revenue receipt by specific legislative mandate vide Section 28(va) and that too with effect from 1.4.2003. Hence, the said Section 28(va) is amendatory and not clarificatory. Lastly, in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nagpur v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji reported in 35 ITR 148 it was held by this Court that if a contract is entered into in the ordinary course of business, any compensation received for its termination (loss of agency) would be a revenue receipt. In the present case, both CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal, came to the conclusion that the agreement entered into by the assessee with Ranbaxy led to loss of source of business; that payment was received under the negative covenant and therefore the receipt of `50 lakhs by the assessee from Ranbaxy was in the nature of capital receipt. In fact, in order to put an end to the litigation, Parliament stepped in to specifically tax such receipts under non-competition agreement with effect from 1.4.2003.
Section 28 in Finance Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1