Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7 (1) , Mumbai

2015 (7) TMI 42 - ITAT MUMBAI

Transfer pricing adjustment on account of provision of support service provided by the assessee to its AE - selection of comparable challenged - Held that:- Having regard to the nature of functions and activities performed by the Rites Ltd., we find that this company cannot be regarded as a good comparable for determining the arms length price in respect of the services rendered by the assessee to its AE.

Vapi Waste & Effluent Mgmt. Co. Ltd. is undisputedly is a non equity company as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is company, we find that this company cannot be considered as a good comparable of the assessee.

WAPCOS Limited company provides consultancy in the domestic and international water and power sector. WAPCOS Limited is a government company with a Mini Ratna-I status and the primary function of the company is to provide consultancy in the field of water, power and infrastructure development for a total project solution. This company is not functionally comparable with the service providi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee has pointed out that out of these four creditors the amount of ₹ 7,32,698/- in respect of M/s. Wander Pvt. Ltd. is involved in the dispute and a legal case is going on with the said party. Since this aspect has not been properly examined and verified by the authorities below, therefore if the said amount is part of a dispute between the parties, then till the dispute is settled it cannot be said that any part of the liability in respect of the said amount ceased to exist. The Ld. A.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

mount has already been paid on 08.10.09 and the assessee has produced before the AO the relevant ledger extract to show the said payment made to the parties. Since all these facts as well as the relevant record has not been properly examined by the authorities below, therefore we are of the considered view that the AO shall verify and examine the relevant record and details to be filed by the assessee and then decide the issue in the light of the various decisions as relied upon by the assessee. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ware therefore respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, findings of the CIT(A) are confirmed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Assessment of the amount received from sale of brand - business income OR long term capital gain - Held that:- In the case in hand, the amount in question has been received as consideration for transfer of trade mark/brand and not in lieu of restricting the assessee from selling the said trade mark for any other purpose and with som .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reby the assessee has transferred the trade mark “SPERT” to the assignee. It is a simple case of transfer of trade mark and not the case of receipt of any non compete fee. As following the judgment of CIT vs. Mediworld Publications Pvt. Ltd [2011 (4) TMI 503 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] we hold that the amount in question received by the assessee as a consideration for transfer/assignment of trade mark to the assignee is in the nature of capital receipt and to be taxed as capital gain and not as busines .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

same. Since the authorities below have not discussed anything about the claim of the assessee, therefore we direct the AO to consider the claim of the assessee of granting TDS credit amounting to ₹ 9,86,392/-.

Non grant of MAT credit - Held that:- We find that vide letter dated 08.11.12 the assessee is seeking rectification under section 154 of the Act inter-alia in respect of MAT credit amount to ₹ 60,72,371/-. Accordingly, the AO is directed to consider the claim 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

RP dated 03.09.2012 passed under section 144C(5) of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: GROUND NO 1 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') / Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Transfer Pricing - II(2) (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned TPO') has erred in law and in fact: (a) Disregarding the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eously computing the margins of some of the comparable companies identified by the learned TPO. (e) By not adding the comparable companies identified by the Appellants with comparable companies identified by the learned TPO (f) In not considering the segmental margins adopted by the Appellant without providing any reasons and by using entity level margins to determine the arms length nature of international transaction of provision of pharma support services undertaken by the Appellant. (g) By n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the Act on account of creditors outstanding for more than three years by treating the same as cessation of liability. GROUND NO. 3 The learned AO erred in disallowing expenditure on annual license fee and / or computer software of ₹ 28,17,425 on the ground that the same is capital expenditure of enduring nature as well as holding that they are in the nature of intangible assets as specified in section 32 of Act. The learned AO further erred in not allowing depreciation @ 60% on Licence .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of total income. 2. Ground No.1 is regarding transfer pricing adjustment on account of provision of support service provided by the assessee to its AE. During the year under consideration, the assessee has entered into international transaction inter-alia provision of contract development support service to its AE Novartis Pharma AG as per the service contract entered into between the parties .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed a cost + mark up of 15% for providing the above mentioned services. In the transfer pricing study report, the assessee used transactional net margin method (TNN) as most appropriate method for bench marking its international transaction involving provision of pharma support service. The assessee has selected 13 comparables and arrived at the mean margin of 9.15% as profit level indicator (PLI) of OP/OC. Thus the assessee claimed that its transaction with the AE is at arms length which is 15% .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is restricted only in respect of three comparables which are part of the set of comparables selected by the TPO for determination of arms length price. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has pointed out that if the three comparables namely Rites Ltd., Vapi Waste & Effluent Mgmt. Co. Ltd. and WAPCOS Limited are excluded from the set of comparables considered by the TPO then no adjustment is required to be made in respect of the international transaction in question. The Ld. A.R. has submitted that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

with the assessee. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions of this Tribunal: 1. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. 2. MCI Com India Pvt. Ltd. 3. M/s. Chemtex Global Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vapi Waste & Effluent Mgmt. Co. Ltd. 4. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has submitted that this company is a non equity company and a company which is limited by guarantee. He has further submitted that this company is incorporated under section 25 of the Companies Act and deals in th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ch of this Tribunal in the case of Actis Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 146 ITD 314 as well as in the case of CISCO Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. dated 14.08.14 in ITA No.271/Bang/2014. Thus the Ld. A.R . has submitted that this company is altogether in a different nature of activity which is not comparable with the services provided by the assessee to its AE. WAPCOS Limited 5. The Ld. A.R. has submitted that this company provides consultancy in domestic and international water and power sectors. This is a gove .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.R. has submitted that this company is not functionally comparable with the assessee as it is engaged in the different nature of functions and activities. He has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Actis Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. dated 25.02.14 in ITA No.4765/11 and 427/13. The Ld. A.R. has pointed out that if these three companies are excluded from the set of comparable considered by the TPO then the mean margin of the comparables .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the order of the DRP and submitted that the DRP has made a specific observation about the functional non comparability of the other comparables. Since the assessee has not objected inclusion of the other companies in the Comparables Act it should not be allowed to seek exclusion of the selective companies whose margins are higher than the other comparables. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. Thus the Ld. D.R. has submitted that the authorities below have considered the broa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vice, drug regulatory support service, marketing support services and integrity medical safety services. Thus there is no dispute that the services provided by the assessee to its AE are all relating to pharmaceutical and medical support service as well as medical safety services. There is no dispute regarding the TNMM as most appropriate method for determining the ALP with profit level indicator as OP/TC. The assessee is charging 15% mark up from the AE for the services provided. The assessee h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

see with the comparable uncontrol price, the margin of the transactions with the AE has to be taken into consideration and not the entity level margin of the assessee. The margin of the assessee from the international transaction is undisputedly 15% as charged by the assessee as cost + 15% marker from the AE. Accordingly, we direct the AO/TPO to compare the assessee s margin at segmental level and not at entity level. The assessee claimed that the segmental level margin is at 15.50%. The assesse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ons and public section undertakings. The functions performed and carried out by Rites Ltd. are entirely different from the functions and services provided by the assessee to its AE. The assessee is providing the support service in the field of pharmaceutical and medical support service, therefore on the face of it, this company cannot be a functionally comparable with the assessee. An identical issue has come up before Delhi Benches of this Tribunal in the case of Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o provide marketing support services to the parent company. They were held to be functionally not comparable with thee engineering companies. 11.1. Following the orders of coordinate benches of ITAT in the cases of M/s MCI Com India P. Ltd.; M/s Verizon India P. Ltd. (supra); Estel in ITA no.584/Banglore/06 and our own decision in case of Actis Advisers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6390/Del/2012, we hold that Choksi, Rites and WAPCOS being functionally different cannot be applied as appropriate comparable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es rendered by the assessee to its AE. ii) Vapi Waste & Effluent Mgmt. Co. Ltd. This company is undisputedly is a non equity company as the capital is contributed by its members and Government of India. The major portion of the income of this comes from its members, therefore the price of this company cannot be treated as an independent and uncontrol price when the majority of the Revenue is earned from the members who have contributed to the capital of the company. Even otherwise the busine .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6.1. Coming back to the issue of comparability the inclusion/ exclusion of Vapi and WAPCOS, the ITAT in the cases of M/s MCI Com India P. Ltd. and M/s Verizon India P. Ltd. (supra) has held that companies like EIL, Rites, Wapsos and TCE are engineering companies and provide end to end solutions and therefore they cannot be compared with those assessee who were into providing marketing support services to the parent company. They were held to be functionally not comparable with thee engineering c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e T.P. adjustments by excluding Vapi and WAPCOS comparables. This ground of the assessee is accordingly allowed. Apart from the finding of Delhi Benches of this Tribunal in the case of Actis Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the comparability of this company was also considered by the Tribunal in the case of CISCO Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and found that this company cannot be considered as a good comparable. In view of the findings of this Tribunal as well as the nature of functions performed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nfrastructure development for a total project solution. The comparability of this company was considered by Delhi benches of this Tribunal in the case of Actis Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in para 6.1 already reproduced in the foregoing part of this order. Similarly, in case of MCI Com India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as in the case of M/s. Chemtex Global Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal found that this company is not functionally comparable with the service providing companies in the other .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of exclusion of the comparables selected by the TPO on the ground of functional non comparability, therefore we cannot go into the issue which has not been raised before us either by the assessee or by the department. Even otherwise the comparable selected by the TPO and confirmed by the DRP cannot be disputed by the department at this stage, therefore we do not propose to go into the issue of a functional comparability of the other companies which are not disputed by the assessee before us. 9. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

consider this aspect at the time of recomputation of the arms length price. 10. Ground No.2 is regarding the addition made under section 41(1) on account of creditors outstanding for more than three years. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that some of the creditors amounting to ₹ 8,00,869/- are outstanding for more than three years and accordingly added the same under section 41(1) by treating this amount as cessation of liability. The assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at liability. The Ld. A.R. has pointed out that to the extent of ₹ 7,32,698/- payable to M/s. Wander Pvt. Ltd. the assessee is involved in a dispute and a legal case is going on with the party. Accordingly, the liability in respect of the same has not been ceased to exist as of date, therefore this amount cannot be treated as cessation of liability and added to the income of the assessee under section 41(1). Further, an amount of ₹ 25,340/- is payable to an employee of the assessee p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f these amounts under section 41(1). In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments: 1. CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd. (SC) (236 ITR 518) 2. Kohinoor Mill Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] (49 ITR 578) (Bombay HC) 3. J.K. Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 34 (Bombay HC) 12. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. has submitted that the assessee failed to establish before the authorities below that the amount which is outstanding for more than three years is not ceased to be payable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t is clear that the AO made the addition in respect of four creditors on the ground that the amount is outstanding for more than three years. The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has pointed out that out of these four creditors the amount of ₹ 7,32,698/- in respect of M/s. Wander Pvt. Ltd. is involved in the dispute and a legal case is going on with the said party. Since this aspect has not been properly examined and verified by the authorities below, therefore if the said amount is part of a disp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as ceased liability of the assessee. As regards the remaining two parties namely Scientico Instruments and Electrolab, the assessee has claimed that the outstanding amount has already been paid on 08.10.09 and the assessee has produced before the AO the relevant ledger extract to show the said payment made to the parties. Since all these facts as well as the relevant record has not been properly examined by the authorities below, therefore we are of the considered view that the AO shall verify a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has not taken a decision that these amounts are no longer payable and the liability is ceased to exist. 15. Ground No.3 is regarding disallowance of annual license fee/computer software expenditure on the ground that the said expenditure is capital in nature. During the year, the assessee has incurred expenditure to the tune of ₹ 28,17,425/- for purchase of computer software and software development. The AO in its draft assessment order held that the purchase of computer software and softw .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e license is on account of license fee, therefore the expenses on Of the Shelf Computer Software packeges incurred by the assessee are on application software packages, implementation charges and upgradation of existing software. Thus, the Ld. A.R. has submitted that these expenses are revenue expenditure as they do not confer any enduring benefit and hence it cannot be considered as capital expenditure. He has pointed out that an identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the authorities below. 17. Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record, at the outset, we note that an identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal for the A.Y. 1995-96 vide order dated 25.09.13 in para 45 as under: 45. Ground 1 relates to the deletion of the disallowance of ₹ 8,33,946/- on account of computer software purchases. This issue has been considered by the AO at page 29 on para 6 of its order. The AO found that out of the total expendi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CIT(A) was convinced that the application software of computers get outdated in no time. Hence, such expenditure cannot be treated as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) further observed that in immediately two preceding assessment years, his predecessors have treated similar expenditure as revenue expenditure, following the findings of his predecessors, the CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the entire disallowance. However, at the same time directed the AO to withdraw the depreciation allowed. Aggri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that application software are of revenue in nature as the AO has not doubted that the expenses were on application software therefore respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, findings of the CIT(A) are confirmed. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 18. Thus it is clear that the Tribunal has considered and decided this issue by following the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (supra). Following the earlier order of thi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as long term capital gain tax. The assessee submitted before the AO that this is sale of intangible asset pertaining to business which is four years old, therefore it was claimed as long term capital gain. Further, the cost of acquisition of the commercial right of the business and brand is taken at Rs.Nil in terms of section 55(2)(a) of the Act and the entire sale consideration is offered to long term capital gain tax. The AO did not accept the claim of the assessee and held that as per section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee. The DRP has confirmed the action of the AO by giving the similar reasons. 20. Before us, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee has submitted that the sale of commercial right and brand are in the nature of capital receipts arising from sale of intangible assets. The sale of these intangible assets is offered to long term capital gain since the same are pertaining to the business which is four years old. He has referred section 2(29B) as well as section 55(2)(a) of the Act and submitted that th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

with his profession, therefore the definition of capital asset as per section 2(14) is not an exhaustive definition and includes capital asset which are intangible in nature. Further, section 2(11)(B) of the Act defines the intangible asset as knowhow, patent, copy right, trade mark, license, franchise or any other business or commercial right of similar nature. Based on the definitions provided under section 2(14) and section 2(11)(B) of the Act it cannot be disputed that the brand/trade mark c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on are in lieu of some restrictive covenants in the agreement. The Ld. A.R. has submitted that clause (va) of section 28 is applicable only when the assessee shares a knowhow, patent, trade mark, license, franchise or any other business or commercial right of similar nature or information or technology likely to assist in the manufacture or processing of goods or provisions of service to another person and the other person pays an additional sum to the assessee to restrict him from sharing the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of non compete fee and fee for exclusivity of right. Thus the Ld. A.R. has submitted that the amount received by the assessee on transfer of brand and trade mark has to be charged as capital gain. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. 273 ITR 1 as well as judgment of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. 249 ITR 265. He has also relied upon the ju .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rities below. 22. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee has received a some of ₹ 1,17,50,000/- against the sale of brand or the trade mark namely SPERT to SOCIETE DES PRODUCTS NESTLE, S.A. vide sale of agreement dated 01.07.07. It is manifest from the deed of assignment that the assessee has transferred its registered trade mark namely SPERT to the assignee for a consideration of ₹ 1,17,50,000/-. 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

EE that the ASSIGNOR is the sole beneficial owner/proprietor of the said Trade Marks. 23. As it is clear from the plain reading of the agreement and particularly the clause (1) that the assessee has assured the assignee that it is the sole beneficial owner or proprietor of the trade mark which means that other than assessee no other person has any right, interest lien or change on the said trade mark which is being transferred under the agreement. The AO has interpreted this clause that the asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or kind, under an agreement for- (a) not carrying out any activity in relation to any business; or (b) not sharing any know-how, patent, copyright, trade-mark, licence, franchise or any other business or commercial right of similar nature or information or technique likely to assist in the manufacture or processing of goods or provision for services: Provided that sub-clause (a) shall not apply to- (i) any sum, whether received or receivable, in cash or kind, on account of transfer of the right .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

derstanding or action in concert,- (A) whether or not such arrangement, understanding or action is formal or in writing; or (B) whether or not such arrangement, understanding or action is intended to be enforceable by legal proceedings; (ii) service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of services in connection with business of any industrial or commercial nature such as accounting, banking, communication, conveying of news or inf .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under: 26.1 For the purpose of giving certainty to taxation of receipts in the nature of non-compete fees and fees for exclusivity rights, the Finance Act, 2002, has included within the scope of "profit and gains of business or profession" any sum received or receivable in cash or in kind under an agreement for not carrying out activity in relation to any business, or not to share any know-how, patent, copyright, trade- mark, licence, franchise or any other business or commercial right .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8 and further it has been clarified by the circular 8 of 2012 that this clause has been inserted for bringing the receipt in the nature of non compete fee and fee for exclusivity rights to tax as business income. In the case in hand, the amount in question has been received as consideration for transfer of trade mark/brand and not in lieu of restricting the assessee from selling the said trade mark for any other purpose and with some other person. Further, the proviso to clause (va) makes it cle .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ignee. It is a simple case of transfer of trade mark and not the case of receipt of any non compete fee. In the latest judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Mediworld Publications Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the issue of business income vis-à-vis capital gain on transfer of trade mark, copy right etc. fell for consideration of their lordship and after considering the various relevant provisions of the Act including section 2(14), section 2(11) as well as section 28(va) and 55 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

our of the transferee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was wrong in holding that the assessee had given up only one of the activities in relation to its business. In such circumstances, the proviso to section 28(va) becomes applicable which stipulates that section 28(va) was not applied to any sum received on account of transfer of right to carry on any business which is chargeable under the head "capital gains". Section 55(2)(a) of the Act has to be read in conjunction with this prov .....

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 received; only for giving up the right to carry on the Healthcare Journals & communications business but was mainly for the transfer of all intangible assets being trademarks, brands, copyright and the associated goodwill of the Healthcare Journals & communications business. As per the law, the consideration for the transfer of intangible assets being trademarks, brands, copyrights and the associated goodwill of Healthcare Journals & Communications business is also taxable as lon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eement dated 10-3-2006 which was captioned as "Specified Asset Transfer Agreement". This agreement defines "Business" to mean the business of publishing, distributing and selling the periodical and products as carried on by the seller (assessee). It also termed all these publications as "Business Intellectual Property Rights" which were treated as "Specified assets". As per clause (2) of the agreement, all these specified assets were transferred in the fol .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ched and appurtenant to the Business Intellectual Property Rights; (d) the Customer Database; (e) The Records; (f) the Editorial Materials; and (g) the Contracts. 2.2 The Seller as the beneficial owner, agrees to assign, transfer and convey to CMP Medica all is rights, title, and interests to the Specified Assets including other intangible benefits and, or, rights related to the Specified Assets to the end and intent the CMP Medica shall be the sole, full and undisputed owner of the Specified As .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der". 13. So much so, the "Customer Data Base" held by the assessee was also shared with the transferee. Thus, there was a clear transfer of the exclusive assets and on transfer it is the transferee who had become the sole and undisputed owner of these assets which were the business assets of the assessee. 14. We, thus, find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same as no substantial question of law arises. 26. In view of the facts of the case and above discussion as well as fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of both the parties and have also gone through the records. The grievance of the assessee is regarding TDS credit amounting to ₹ 9,86,392/- not granted by the AO. This objection was raised by the assessee before the DRP seeking directions for grant of TDS credit of ₹ 13,44,25,277. The DRP has directed the AO to allow the TDS claim after due verification. Before us the assessee has further pleaded the TDS credit amounting to ₹ 9,86,392/- and submitted that the AO has not grante .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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