9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o substantial questions of law proposed in paragraph 5 of the Memorandum of the Appeal. As far as the first substantial question of law relying on the provisions of Section 28 (va) (b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is that the respondent assessee has received the consideration towards the transfer of motherboards sales and marketing under the brand name of the purchasing company consequent on a joint venture agreement as a capital receipt and not as a revenue receipt. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that the consideration received by the respondent/assessee from M/s. Giga Byte Technology India Ltd. is to be treated as business receipt and not as capital gains as claimed by the respondent/assessee and consequently, this amount tow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income Tax Act. Shri Jain, the learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT has recorded findings of fact on this issue after examining the terms of Transfer of Business Agreement and the material on record and the provisions of the Income Tax Act. It is submitted that the substantial questions of law as formulated by the appellant in paragraph 5 of the Memorandum of Appeal does not arise for consideration. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties and with their assistance have examined the record and also seen the Transfer of Business Agreement dated 31/8/2007, a copy of which is produced at the time of hearing. 5. The relevant portion of Annexure- I of the above menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e findings of fact recorded by the CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT are based on proper appreciation of the material on record and in consonance with the provisions of Section 28 (va) First proviso of the Income Tax Act. 6. As far as the challenge raised by the appellant regarding 80 IB deductions, the findings given by the CIT (Appeals) and upheld by the ITAT are also based on proper appreciation of the material on record. The ITAT has recorded that the product has been manufactured in 80 IB units since 1/9/1999 and the expenditure on research and development has been incurred since 2007 and the expenditure on research and development cannot be said to be on a product which is commercialized. The appellant has not been able to point out any per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
