Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Orient Blackswan Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
Appeal Number : ITA No.252/Hyd/2012, ITA No.731/Hyd/2014, ITA No.732/Hyd/2014
Date of Judgement/Order : 06.07.2016
Related Assessment Year : 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sah

The Words ‘Not Sharing’ In Section 28(va)(b) Control The Extended Meaning Of Taxable Income As Appearing In This Section

The clause (va) has been inserted in section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(herein referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1.4.2003 relevant to A.Y. 2003-04. Section 28 of the Act enlists certain incomes chargeable to Income Tax under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”.  Section 28(va)(b), subject to its Proviso and Explanation, deals with payment received for not sharing trade mark etc.

Recently, in Orient Blackswan Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Hyderabad [ITA No.252/Hyd/2012; A.Y.2008-09, ITA No.731/Hyd/2014; A.Y. 2009-10, ITA No.732/Hyd/2014; A.Y. 2010-11, Date of Pronouncement 06.07.2016], the three appeals were filed by the assessee/ appellant against similar but separate orders of the CIT(A) V, Hyderabad dated 21.12.2011 for the A.Y.s 2008-09 and dated 31.10.2013 for the A.Y.s 2009-10 and 2010-11. Since common issues were involved in these appeals involving common factual background, these appeals were disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031