• Home
  • Current News
  • Columns
  • Judiciary
  • Know your law
  • Stories
  • International News
  • Taxation News
  • Voice of Women
  • Home
  • Current News
  • Columns
  • Judiciary
  • Know your law
  • Stories
  • International News
  • Taxation News
  • Voice of Women
Live Adalat
Facebook Twitter Instagram
  • Home
  • Current News
  • Columns
  • Judiciary
  • Know your law
  • Stories
  • International News
  • Taxation News
  • Voice of Women
Live Adalat
Home»Current News»Business Expenditure – Legal expenses incurred for protecting the business of the firm are allowable as deduction: [Landmark Decision]

Business Expenditure – Legal expenses incurred for protecting the business of the firm are allowable as deduction: [Landmark Decision]

0
By Akshay Sharma on April 24, 2022 Current News, Taxation News
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Telegram WhatsApp

Looking back in the history of countries landmark judgements, we can see that some decisions made by the court have greatly impacted the way the country functions. Today we will look back on Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs CIT (SC) judgement.

The facts of the case indicate that in 1939 late Sri S. Raghuram Prabhu started the business of manufacturing beedis. He was later joined in the business by Sri Madhav Shenoy as a partner and thus M/s. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works came into existence with effect from 28th February, 1940.

The partnership firm was dissolved due to differences between the partners. Subsequent to dissolution an auction conducted for taking over the business of the earstwhile partnership firm on going concern basis, three of the earstwhile partners of the partnership firm formed an AOP and emerged as the highest bidders of the auction. Thereafter, they continued the business in the name of the AOP. In A.Y. 1995-96, the assessee claimed deduction of legal expenses as revenue expenditure allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) and ITAT allowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the legal expenses incurred for defending the business of the going concern and for protecting its interest could not be said to be personal in nature nor could it be said that the expenses were unreasonable or not bona fide. The High Court reversed the finding of the Tribunal.

The Supreme Court observed that in Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 754 (SC) it was held that the expenses for the purposes of protecting the business of the assessee as a going concern was allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court held that there is a clear finding of fact by the Tribunal that the legal expenses incurred by the assessee were for protecting its business and there is no reason to reverse this finding of fact particularly since nothing has been shown to conclude that the finding of fact was perverse in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, the legal expenses incurred for protecting the business were allowable as deduction under section 37(1) of the Act.

The Intellectual Property Rights such as trademarks, copyrights and know-how come within the definition of ‘plant’ for the reason that in a large business, control over intellectual property rights such as brand name, trademark etc. are absolutely necessary. Moreover, the acquisition of such rights and know-how is acquisition of a capital nature. Therefore, the trademarks, copyrights and know-how acquired by the assessee would come within the definition of ‘plant’ being commercially necessary and essential as understood by those dealing with direct taxes. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 32 read with section 43(3) of the Act.

M/S Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Business Expenditure Landmark Decision Legal Expense Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Supreme Court of India Tax Patrika
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Telegram WhatsApp
Previous ArticleSupreme Court: A witness’s testimony in a criminal trial cannot be dismissed based on minor errors or omissions
Next Article Bombay High Court quashes rape FIR as the survivor says she want to focus on studies

Related Posts

Navjot Singh Sidhu moves Supreme Court seeking additional time to surrender after getting 1 year jail term

May 20, 2022

Education Loan cannot be denied due to low CIBIL score of Parents: Kerala High Court

May 19, 2022

NIA Court convicts Kashmiri separatist terrorist Yasin Malik, after he pleaded guilty in connection with J&K terror funding case

May 19, 2022

Comments are closed.

The Live Adalat welcomes articles, blog posts and other forms of content. If you are interested in writing for us, joining us please write to us at adalatlive@gmail.com
Top judgements of March
https://liveadalat.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/WhatsApp-Video-2022-03-28-at-16.39.34.mp4
VIEW MORE VIDEOS
INTERESTING LEGAL FACTS
VIEW MORE VIDEOS

Participate in Live Adalat Legal Quiz

Facebook Twitter Instagram

Contact Us

Email : info@liveadalat.com

Subscribe Newsletter

© 2022 Liveadalat.com
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Terms

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Sign In or Register

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below.

Lost password?