https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266008 The SC reversed the HC's decision regarding legal expenses under Section 37, holding that the Tribunal's factual finding that expenses were incurred for protecting business interests rather than personal reasons should not have been disturbed without framing a specific question on perverse findings. On intellectual property depreciation, the SC agreed with the Tribunal that trademarks, copyrights and know-how qualify as "plant" under Section 32 read with Section 43(3), being commercially necessary for business operations. The SC noted that the relevant provision made no distinction between tangible and intangible assets for depreciation purposes at the time. The assessee was granted depreciation benefits on intellectual property rights as plant rather than under Sections 35A/35AB. en-us Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jul 2025 15:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266008 The SC reversed the HC's decision regarding legal expenses under Section 37, holding that the Tribunal's factual finding that expenses were incurred for protecting business interests rather than personal reasons should not have been disturbed without framing a specific question on perverse findings. On intellectual property depreciation, the SC agreed with the Tribunal that trademarks, copyrights and know-how qualify as "plant" under Section 32 read with Section 43(3), being commercially necessary for business operations. The SC noted that the relevant provision made no distinction between tangible and intangible assets for depreciation purposes at the time. The assessee was granted depreciation benefits on intellectual property rights as plant rather than under Sections 35A/35AB. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266008