9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee from foreign entity towards settlement of a civil dispute pertaining to a trademark has to be treated. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Canara Bank Securities Ltd. [ 2019 (10) TMI 1512 - SC ORDER] by order dismissed the department s appeal affirming the view taken by the Bombay High Court [ 2019 (2) TMI 2020 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the High Court held that the question whether the income should be taxed as business income or has arisen from other source was a debatable issue and the Assessing Officer had taken the plausible view that it was a business income after due enquiries and therefore not open for the Commissioner to take such an order in revision. We are of the considered view that the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing for the respondent/assessee. The short issue involved in this case is whether the Commissioner could have invoked his power under Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not conduct proper enquiry. We need not labour much to decide this issue as the learned Tribunal has elaborately discussed the factual position and brought out as to how the Assessing Officer had conducted an enquiry into the aspect as to how the amount received by the assessee from foreign entity towards settlement of a civil dispute pertaining to a trademark has to be treated. For better understanding we extract the relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal which has been done after taking note of clauses 4 and 11 of the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdinate bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in Orient Blackswan (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2016) 71 Taxmann.com 319 wherein under similar circumstances the question arose as to whether the compensation received under compromise in respect of putting an end to litigation and neither of the party precluded from using the trade mark then such a compensation cannot be treated as business income, he submitted that the view taken by the CIT also is equally lopsided. 12. Now coming to the proceedings before the Assessing Officer, we find from the Paper book that Page No. 46 thereof is the letter dated 05.12.2012 where under the AO sought some information from the assessee and such information includes the following question also : What is the nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that the income has to be charged as capital gain. The AO made enquiries, called for details of such income and having considered the submissions of the assessee in respect of all the three probable views i.e. capital receipt, business income and capital gain, the AO for the reasons recorded in his order at page nos. 7 to 10, came to the conclusion that the income in dispute has to be charged as capital gain but not as capital receipt or business income. In this factual context, we are called upon to examine the question whether the CIT is justified in terming the order of AO as erroneous and without proper enquiry or on wrong assumption of the facts. From the above, we see that it is not a case where the Assessing Officer failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
