Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Versus The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1 (1) Mumbai And Another

Appeal is admitted with regard to Question 'A' and 'G'.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding head office expenditure over and above what had already been allocated by the appellant was required to be further allocated for the purposes of computing deduction under section 10A, 10B, 80IC and 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal ought to have held that no adjudication in terms of Section 145(2) of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') challenges the order dated 10 December 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'). The impugned order dated 10 December 2012 of the Tribunal relates to Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The appellant-assessee has urged the following questions of law: "(A) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding head office expenditure over and above what had already been allocated by the appellant was r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5 crores to MUL Dentpro (P) Ltd. towards non-compete covenants was allowable as a revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) in the year under consideration? (E) Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that a disallowance under Section 14A was called for in the facts and circumstances of the case? (F) Whether the Tribunal erred in confirming the disallowance under Section 14A of the extent of 0.5% of the tax-free income, being excessive unreasonable perverse and as such no person properly instructed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not pressed by the Appellant. 4. Regarding Question 'D', the Tribunal by the impugned order has remanded to the Assessing Officer the issue of the nature of non-compete fees of ₹ 5 Crores and ₹ 4.75 Crores paid to Prime Health Care Products and M/s MUL Dentpro (P) Ltd. respectively. However, while restoring the issue of the nature of payment of non-compete fees i.e. revenue or not, the impugned order observes "This non-compete fees can not be considered as revenue expen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version