9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2017 (8) TMI 662 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Decided against the revenue. - T. C. (A). No. 177 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2018 - M. M. SUNDRESH And N. ANAND VENKATESH, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan For the Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.Sridhar JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. M. Sundresh, J. ) Aggrieved over the order passed by the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s.Radaan Media Works India Ltd., Chennai - 17 (T.C.A. No.1175 of 2008 dated 08.08.2017) in favour of the assessee in its own case and against the Revenue. In the said decision, this Court has held as under: 27. Coming to Tax case (Appeal) No.1175 of 2008, the question before us is whether brand equity would be an intang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of this High Court in the case of Penta Media Graphics and Delhi High Court in the case of Sharp Business Systems Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, that support the stand of the assessee. 29. The substantial questions of law in T.C.No.1175 of 2008 are thus decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue holding that brand equity constitutes an intangible asset in terms of Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
