https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758818 The Karnataka HC allowed the assessee's appeal regarding trademark cost deduction and Section 80JJAA claims. The court held that trademark usage rights for 36 months constituted revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure, as no enduring asset was created and the assessee merely had usage rights without ownership. The Revenue's reliance on Sections 32(1) and 43(6) was rejected. Regarding Section 80JJAA deduction for permanent employees working less than 300 days, the court followed the precedent in Texas Instruments India case, ruling in favor of the assessee on both issues. en-us Wed, 04 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Sep 2024 11:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758818 The Karnataka HC allowed the assessee's appeal regarding trademark cost deduction and Section 80JJAA claims. The court held that trademark usage rights for 36 months constituted revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure, as no enduring asset was created and the assessee merely had usage rights without ownership. The Revenue's reliance on Sections 32(1) and 43(6) was rejected. Regarding Section 80JJAA deduction for permanent employees working less than 300 days, the court followed the precedent in Texas Instruments India case, ruling in favor of the assessee on both issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758818