Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (12) TMI 844 - AT - Income TaxAddition - Bad debts - Refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT (2010 -TMI - 76626 - SUPREME COURT) in which it has been held that for allowance of bad debts, it is enough if bad debts are written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee and it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable - Decided in favour of assessee. Diminution in the value of investments - As per the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965 -TMI - 49308 - SUPREME Court], held that the assessee is entitled to the claim of diminution in the value of securities which are held for the purpose of its business - Decided in favour of assessee. Long-term capital loss - Hence, the issue being covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2005-06 - Observe that the computation done by the parties has not been assailed by providing any alternate computation ; and commercial transactions to run two separate legal entities, may be belonging to the same group, have to be dealt with as per law and cannot be thrown on that ground alone - Do not find any valid basis for disallowance of long-term capital loss by the Assessing Officer Decided in favour of assessee. Collaboration agreement - Royalty - Revenue expenditure or not - As per the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997 -TMI - 5553 - SUPREME Court], found that their Lordships of the Supreme Court were actually considering a case of composite agreement which involved an agreement to implement a turnkey project right from providing design, etc. in establishing the factory and user of the technical know-how - Thereafter their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that payment made for the user of the logo is always revenue in nature - Decided in favour of assessee.
|