9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 97-98. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-II at Mumbai on 21-1-2003 and arises out of the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. We heard Shri AK Singh, the learned departmental representative appearing for the Revenue and Shri FB Andhyarujina, the learned senior counsel for the respondent-assessee. 3. The first ground raised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee to safeguard its interest in the said brand name and thereby to protect its business necessities. He held that the brand in dispute is intimately connected with the business activity carried on by the assessee and in the light of the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Investment Corpn. of India Ltd. 137 ITR 307 and Ibrahim Aboobaker v. CIT 81 ITR 664 and that of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rahim Aboobaker 81 ITR 664 has held that the expenditure incurred for the preservation of the entire business as an entity and for defending against a claim of hostile title or against nationalization must be construed to be an expenditure incurred "for the purposes of business" which is deductible as revenue expenditure. The Supreme Court in the case of Dalmia Jain Co. Ltd. 81 ITR 754 has he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is a revenue expenditure, deductible in computation of the taxable income. Therefore, we find no merit in the ground raised by the Revenue and it is accordingly rejected. 6. The second ground raised by the Revenue is that the CIT(A) has treated the loss on sale of shares as business loss whereas it should have been treated as speculative loss as the business carried on by the assessee was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Explanation to section 73. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Annam Partfolio Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 92 ITD 324 has held that the provisions contained in the Explanation to section 73 could be invoked only where a device is adopted by an assessee-company to reduce its taxable income. In the present case, there is no such case as the transaction itself was an isolated one. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
