MAWANA SUGARS LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 4519/DEL/2009Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 August 2024AY 2001-02Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)24 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax the Rs. 11 crores received on sale of trademark, considering it a trading receipt. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee received Rs. 11 crores on account of the sale of a trademark and a non-compete fee. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as a taxable trading receipt, while the assessee claimed it as a capital receipt. The assessee also claimed a loss on the surrender of land to DDA and a disallowance for leave encashment provision.

What were the issues?

Whether the receipt from the sale of a trademark and a non-compete fee is a taxable trading receipt or a capital receipt, and whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 28(va),Section 43B(f),Section 50,Section 115JB,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(8)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate, Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Hearing: 04.06.2024

PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 30.10.2009 for the Assessment Year 2001-02 by raising following grounds of appeal :- “1. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding that the sum of Rs.11 crores (received by the assessee on account of sale of Trade Mark) was liable to tax.

1.

1 That on facts the CIT(A) erred in observing that the consideration of Rs 11 crores was received by the assessee a accou

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 28(va)

All 102 judgments and leading authorities on Section 28(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →