<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1948 (3) TMI 34 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180394</link>
    <description>Expenditure incurred for obtaining trade mark registration was treated as revenue expenditure because it was recurring, did not create a capital asset, and did not confer an enduring advantage; the limited registration period and need for renewal supported that characterisation. The outlay was also regarded as wholly and exclusively incurred for business purposes, so it was allowable as a revenue outgoing and not capital expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 1948 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:05:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1948 (3) TMI 34 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180394</link>
      <description>Expenditure incurred for obtaining trade mark registration was treated as revenue expenditure because it was recurring, did not create a capital asset, and did not confer an enduring advantage; the limited registration period and need for renewal supported that characterisation. The outlay was also regarded as wholly and exclusively incurred for business purposes, so it was allowable as a revenue outgoing and not capital expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 1948 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>