As per para 7, 8 and 9 of the Accounting Standard 26 (AS 26) issued by the ICAI, the definition of intangible asset and trade mark specifically includes brand names.It was held by the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal that brand is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Act.
In the present case As assessee had established nexus of interest expenses with its main activity of financing and there was not a single amount of interest bearing borrowings which could be related with investment which yielded tax-free dividend income, no disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) was called for. AO was directed to compute disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) at the rate of 0.5% of investments which actually have resulted in the exempt dividend income.
The Nainital Bank Ltd. Vs Asstt. (ITAT Delhi) When the assessee furnished all the facts and figures including the earning of the tax free income and the expenditure which was accepted by the learned AO, it is not open for the AO to say that the income escaped assessment because assessee did not reveal the […]
Pr. CIT (A) Vs M/s Bank Note Paper Mill (Karnataka High Court) HC expresses concern and anguish at the tendency of the Revenue Department to file unnecessary appeals u/s. 260-A of the Act even though the issues are ex facie covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Courts or even the Hon’ble Supreme Court […]
The fresh release made in the media today under ‘Panama Paper Leaks’ is being promptly looked into by the law enforcement agencies under the aegis of the Multi Agency Group (MAG) already constituted for facilitating coordinated and speedy investigation.
Further, it is clarified that only such goods and/or conveyances should be detained/confiscated in respect of which there is a violation of the provisions of the GST Acts or the rules made thereunder.
Explanation offered by the assessee would constitute ‘reasonable cause’ within the meaning of section 273B of the Act and hence the assessee would be entitled for immunity from levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act.
Skaps Industries India Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Section 90(4), in the absence of a non-obstante clause, cannot be read as a limitation to the treaty superiority under Section 90(2), we are of the considered view that an eligible assessee cannot be declined the treaty protection under section 90(2) on the ground that the […]
This appeal, filed by the assesseee, being ITA No. 2960/Mum/2016, is directed against the appellate order dated 16.02.2016 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane (hereinafter called the CIT(A)), for assessment year 2011-12, appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from the assessment order dated 25.03.2014 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called the AO) u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).
PCIT Vs Rungta Mines Ltd (Calcutta High Court) The legal issue that the Revenue seeks to assert is as to whether the payment of the net present value by an assessee engaged in mining for use of forest land for mining purpose would be a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure. It is not in […]
