Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal had observed that the Revenue authorities did not undertake the exercise of determining the value of goodwill of the assessee at the time of surrender. The assessee had not given any basis for valuation of its goodwill for the manufacture of ice-cream at Rs. 10 lakhs. The Tribunal, instead of remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for redetermination of the value of goodwill, had proceeded to decide this issue at its own level to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The Tribunal had rightly come to a conclusion that the ratio of all goodwill worked out to 30 per cent. In this backdrop, out of Rs. 55 lakhs, Rs. 15 lakhs were taken towards goodwill and trade marks and the remaining amount on account of the surrender of the right to manufacture ice-creams and other allied products under the brand name “Kwality.” This was based on a correct appreciation of facts. There was no ground made out to interfere with the order of the Tribunal as it had been passed by appreciating the facts in the right perspective. No substantial question of law arose for consideration.(AY.1995-96 to 1997-98)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S.4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue receipt-Relinquishment of trade mark user right and interest and termination of ice-cream manufacturing facilities under brand name Valuation of goodwill not done by Department at time of surrender-Re-determination of value of goodwill by Tribunal to avoid multiplicity of litigation-Tribunal valuing goodwill at 30 per cent. and balance on account of relinquishment of manufacturing rights Tribunal order based on appreciation of facts in right perspective-No substantial question of law. [S. 260A] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59980","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fBq","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59980","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59980"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59980\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":59981,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59980\/revisions\/59981"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59980"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59980"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59980"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}