Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.1640/KB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 24TH MARCH, 2006. versus I.T.A. NO.1640/KB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 24TH MARCH, 2006.

Section 27 Capital Acquisition Goodwill was engaged in the manufacture and distribution of non-pharmaceutical skin and beauty care products under the Special Agency and License Agreement, therefore, using the Company's trademark of the Princi Company The principal company had the exclusive right to terminate and withdraw such agency. Such licensing agreements stating that the services of the Assisi were no longer required were prohibited from purchasing, manufacturing, selling or distributing the said products because the registered trademark of the proprietary company owned by the Principal Company issued the Assisi its revenue. Had approached the High Court with the object of rescuing important goods. The two companies reached an agreement, and as a result of such an agreement, the agency was paid licenses and business breaks as well as agency contract compensation. The officer who evaluated such amount treated the amount as good. Assisi claimed the above amount as he is exempt from the charge under capital receipt as per the Income Tax Law whereas the department treated the annual income `well 'and as a result, the capital gains tax income tax ordinance. Under section 27 of 1979, receiving this amount cannot be considered as goodwill. The goodwill was a tree that was sown and in this case the principal company's agency and license, which had been withdrawn by the Assisi, had nothing in his hand, even before the court's temporary injunction again. Could not build, it was no good family advocate from Ahmed pur Sial lawyer