https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761660 Royalty paid for limited, non-exclusive and non-transferable use of a parent company's logo or trademark was treated as revenue expenditure because it did not involve transfer of ownership or acquisition of an enduring asset, and the deduction was therefore allowable rather than depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). Amounts written off for defaulting chit subscribers were also held deductible, because the foreman's statutory and contractual obligation to cover defaults created a business-linked debtor-creditor relationship, and a write-off in the accounts was sufficient to claim bad debt; in any event, the sums qualified as business loss. The deductions were accordingly upheld. en-us Mon, 04 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Mar 2025 11:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761660 Royalty paid for limited, non-exclusive and non-transferable use of a parent company's logo or trademark was treated as revenue expenditure because it did not involve transfer of ownership or acquisition of an enduring asset, and the deduction was therefore allowable rather than depreciation under section 32(1)(ii). Amounts written off for defaulting chit subscribers were also held deductible, because the foreman's statutory and contractual obligation to cover defaults created a business-linked debtor-creditor relationship, and a write-off in the accounts was sufficient to claim bad debt; in any event, the sums qualified as business loss. The deductions were accordingly upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 04 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761660