In case, the owner of a brand name allows its usage to another entity, then a fee is recovered as a mode of compensation which is generally known as brand royalty.
Assessee inter alia contended that the consideration was received as per the settlement agreement and vetted by Tomlin order of the Court of U.K. in consideration of restraining the assessee from the use of the name ‘Longman’ and as such, it is a capital receipt not liable to tax at all.
Deduction u/s 80HH of the Act in respect of profit and gains from newly established industrial undertaking in backward areas would be given subject to fulfillment of certain conditions as provided in sub section (2) of the said provision. In the case in hand it is not the case of the AO that the assessee […]
The education has got different meaning, purpose or object for each person depending upon its position and background. We have education of various types e.g. Pre-schooling, schooling, higher education, professional education, vocational training, professions training etc etc.
The AO while completing the assessment disallowed the write off of security deposit treating it as capital deposit and by observing that it cannot partake the nature of revenue expenditure. He also observed that this deposit was not offered as income in the books of account and the transaction of passing security deposit is a capital transaction and does not qualify the basic condition that it was credited as income in the past.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT cannot revise assessment for making afresh examination of an issue already examined by the AO who has taken one of the possible views because there has been no erroneous order which could ordered to be revised.
The assessee had applied tax rate of 10% in the terms of the proviso to section 112(1) of the Income Tax Act. However, the AO has applied tax rate of 20% as the proviso below section 112(1)(c) was not applicable in the case of non-residents.
While the CIT may have proceeded on the basis that the reopening of the assessment was valid, this does not satisfy the requirement of law that prior to the reopening of the assessment, the AO has to, applying his mind to the materials, conclude that he has reason to believe that income of the Assessee has escaped assessment.
The assessee has been denied the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. the assessee has duly purchased and made investment in the residential bungalow at Juhu(new asset) along with co-owner Smt. Chhaya B. Parekh. The said bungalow was demolished for the purposes of redevelopment.
ITAT Amritsar held that the scrutiny of cases selected on the basis of information received through Annual Information Return (AIR) would be limited only to the aspects of information received through AIR.
