9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 90 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of right to receive royalty fees Held that - Asseasee company entered into agreement with Dr. Syed Mohd. won Syed Hussein and Dr. Lourdenedin of Kaulalumpur on 28.8.7S. The company agreed to provide technical knowhow - assessee company has received total consideration of Rs.4.75,000/- for both the agreements which has been added to the value of the goodwill. This part of consideration is liable to be taxed as amount received in lieu of income - assessee did not produce any further evidence or material justifying their case for non-taxability of the amount in question addition upheld
Issues involved:
1. Taxing of Profit u/s 41(2) 2. Taxing of Right to receive Royalty/fees 3. Taxing of expenditure on scientific research u/s 41(1) 4. Increase in value of closing stock of finished goods 5. Taxing of Profit u/s 41(3) being Capital Expenditure on Scientific Research 6. Legality of Order Issue 1: Taxing of Profit u/s 41(2): The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, challenging various additions, including profit under section 41(2) related to depreciation on plant and machinery. The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside these issues to the AO for fresh adjudication based on guidelines from the Gujarat High Court. The AO, after considering submissions, reiterated the original additions as the assessee failed to provide substantiating details. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, which was further confirmed by the ITAT Ahmedabad, as the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. Issue 2: Taxing of Right to receive Royalty/fees: The AO added an amount for the right to receive royalty fees based on agreements with certain parties. The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside this issue for fresh adjudication by the AO to examine the facts and evidence to be presented by the assessee. The AO, after giving an opportunity to the assessee, maintained the addition as the assessee failed to provide additional evidence or justification for non-taxability of the amount. The CIT(A) and the ITAT upheld the AO's decision, stating that no substantial arguments were presented to deviate from the lower authorities' view. Issue 3: Taxing of expenditure on scientific research u/s 41(1): The ITAT Ahmedabad directed the AO to decide on issues related to revenue expenditure on scientific research under section 41(1) based on guidelines from the Gujarat High Court. Despite the opportunity given to the assessee to provide details, no substantial evidence was submitted. As a result, the original addition was maintained by the lower authorities, and the ITAT upheld their decisions. Issue 4: Increase in value of closing stock of finished goods: The ITAT Ahmedabad instructed the AO to re-examine the difference in the value of finished products based on detailed guidelines from the Gujarat High Court. The assessee did not provide adequate details to support their case during the reassessment. Consequently, the original addition was upheld by the lower authorities, and the ITAT affirmed their decisions due to the lack of substantiating evidence from the assessee. Issue 5: Taxing of Profit u/s 41(3) being Capital Expenditure on Scientific Research: The ITAT Ahmedabad directed the AO to reconsider the profit under section 41(3) related to capital expenditure on scientific research in light of the Gujarat High Court's guidelines. However, the assessee failed to present substantial details to support their case during the reassessment. As a result, the original addition was maintained by the lower authorities, and the ITAT upheld their decisions due to the lack of sufficient evidence provided by the assessee. In conclusion, the ITAT Ahmedabad, in the case under consideration, addressed various issues related to the taxing of profits under different sections of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-evaluate the additions based on guidelines from the Gujarat High Court. However, the assessee failed to provide adequate details or evidence to support their claims during the reassessment process. Consequently, the original additions made by the AO were upheld by the lower authorities and affirmed by the ITAT due to the lack of substantiating evidence from the assessee.
|
