https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189963 Legal expenses incurred to defend and protect a trade-mark were treated as revenue expenditure because they were incurred in the ordinary course of business to preserve trading operations, sales, and profit-earning capacity. The outlay did not bring into existence any new asset, nor did it augment the capital structure or secure an enduring capital advantage. As the litigation was directed against a counterfeit trade-mark that impaired trading results and created an impediment to trade, the expense was held deductible in computing business income. en-us Mon, 25 Jan 1943 00:00:00 +0630 Fri, 27 Jan 2017 18:41:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189963 Legal expenses incurred to defend and protect a trade-mark were treated as revenue expenditure because they were incurred in the ordinary course of business to preserve trading operations, sales, and profit-earning capacity. The outlay did not bring into existence any new asset, nor did it augment the capital structure or secure an enduring capital advantage. As the litigation was directed against a counterfeit trade-mark that impaired trading results and created an impediment to trade, the expense was held deductible in computing business income. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 25 Jan 1943 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189963