https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181666 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A) decision to treat expenses paid to Trade Mark Attorneys as revenue expenditure, rejecting the Revenue's appeal for capital treatment. Regarding weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB)(1) for clinical trials, the ITAT reversed the CIT(A) order, disallowing the deduction for expenses incurred outside approved R&D labs. The ITAT held that the deduction is only available for in-house research and development facilities approved by the prescribed authority, based on legal interpretation. The Revenue's appeal was partially upheld on this issue. en-us Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:29:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181666 The ITAT upheld the CIT(A) decision to treat expenses paid to Trade Mark Attorneys as revenue expenditure, rejecting the Revenue's appeal for capital treatment. Regarding weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB)(1) for clinical trials, the ITAT reversed the CIT(A) order, disallowing the deduction for expenses incurred outside approved R&D labs. The ITAT held that the deduction is only available for in-house research and development facilities approved by the prescribed authority, based on legal interpretation. The Revenue's appeal was partially upheld on this issue. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181666