CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd.

ITA 2170/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

…) and have read into the observations of ld. CIT(A) in support of the contention that the expenditure incurred on first registration of Trademark related expenses are revenue in nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Finley Mills Ltd. [20 ITR 475 (SC)]. The findings of Hon’ble Apex Court in this mater are relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) and has deleted the addition by observing as under: “42. I have considered the findings of the AO in the remand report and the submissions thereon made by the appellant. As regards professional fees paid to Amarchand Mangaldas, the only issue for consideratio…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

ITA 2118/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

…) and have read into the observations of ld. CIT(A) in support of the contention that the expenditure incurred on first registration of Trademark related expenses are revenue in nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Finley Mills Ltd. [20 ITR 475 (SC)]. The findings of Hon’ble Apex Court in this mater are relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) and has deleted the addition by observing as under: “42. I have considered the findings of the AO in the remand report and the submissions thereon made by the appellant. As regards professional fees paid to Amarchand Mangaldas, the only issue for consideratio…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

ITA 2117/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

…) and have read into the observations of ld. CIT(A) in support of the contention that the expenditure incurred on first registration of Trademark related expenses are revenue in nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Finley Mills Ltd. [20 ITR 475 (SC)]. The findings of Hon’ble Apex Court in this mater are relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) and has deleted the addition by observing as under: “42. I have considered the findings of the AO in the remand report and the submissions thereon made by the appellant. As regards professional fees paid to Amarchand Mangaldas, the only issue for consideratio…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ABHINAND VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly all these appeals of revenue are to be treated, as dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, & Shri NarendraFor Respondent: C. O. No. 110/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 2170/Mum/2025

ITA 1001/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

…) and have read into the observations of ld. CIT(A) in support of the contention that the expenditure incurred on first registration of Trademark related expenses are revenue in nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Finley Mills Ltd. [20 ITR 475 (SC)]. The findings of Hon’ble Apex Court in this mater are relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) and has deleted the addition by observing as under: “42. I have considered the findings of the AO in the remand report and the submissions thereon made by the appellant. As regards professional fees paid to Amarchand Mangaldas, the only issue for consideratio…

ARVIND ENVISOL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 32Section 37

…e case of Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 754, wherein similar issue has been held in favour of the assessee. Further the case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. [1951] 20 ITR 475, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that expenses are incurred on registration of new patents are not capital expenditure. We also note that above decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Finley Mills Ltd. (supra) has been followed by co- ordinate Bench of Ahemedabad in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2012] 21 taxmann.co…

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1223/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

ITA 1222/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2010-11

…se of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 754 (SC) wherein similar issue has been held in favour of the assessee. Further the case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Finlay Mills Ltd. [1951] 20 ITR 475 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that expenses are incurred on registration of new patents are not capital expenditure. We also note that above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Finley Mills Ltd. (supra) has been followed by co-ordinate Bench of Ahemedabad in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. ACIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com…

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

ITA 1166/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2011-12

…se of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 754 (SC) wherein similar issue has been held in favour of the assessee. Further the case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Finlay Mills Ltd. [1951] 20 ITR 475 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that expenses are incurred on registration of new patents are not capital expenditure. We also note that above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Finley Mills Ltd. (supra) has been followed by co-ordinate Bench of Ahemedabad in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. ACIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com…

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

ITA 1068/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2010-11

…se of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 754 (SC) wherein similar issue has been held in favour of the assessee. Further the case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Finlay Mills Ltd. [1951] 20 ITR 475 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that expenses are incurred on registration of new patents are not capital expenditure. We also note that above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Finley Mills Ltd. (supra) has been followed by co-ordinate Bench of Ahemedabad in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. ACIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com…

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

ITA 994/BANG/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

…se of Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 754 (SC) wherein similar issue has been held in favour of the assessee. Further the case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Finlay Mills Ltd. [1951] 20 ITR 475 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that expenses are incurred on registration of new patents are not capital expenditure. We also note that above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Finley Mills Ltd. (supra) has been followed by co-ordinate Bench of Ahemedabad in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. ACIT [2012] 21 taxmann.com…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Canara Bank, The Deputy Fm Wing, Commissioner Of Head Office, Income Tax, 112 Jc Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 002. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacc6106G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…of provisions of section 263. Further on perusal of the order of Hon’ble High Court in revenue’s appeal, there is a clear direction to allow the claim by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Finlay Mills Ltd. reported in (1951) 20 ITR 475. Page 6 of 7 8. This aspect can be analysed in another way by holding that a 263 petition cannot be initiated merely because the Ld.PCIT is of the opinion to disallow the entire amount as against partial relief. As the initial action is held to be not in conformity with law, all the subsequent and consequential proceedings fall through for the rea…

ANUNTA TECHNOLOGIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2946/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleanunta Technologies Management V. Dcit Circle- 12(1)(1) Services Limited Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor Level 2, Block B6 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 Nirlon Knowledge Park Off Western Express Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400063 Pan: Aakca6159M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. Dinkle Haria Department Represented By : Shri S. Anbuselvam

…nning business without generating any new asset, same was to be allowed as deduction. 3. The Appellant relies on the following judgements in support of the said ground: 14 Anunta Technologies Management Services Limited (1) CIT v/s. Finlay Mills Ltd.-[(1951) 20 ITR 475 (SC)] The contention of the revenue was fallacious. The machinery which acquires a greater productive capacity by reason of its improvement by inclusion of some new invention naturally becomes a new and altered asset by that process. So long as the machinery lasts, the improvement continues to the advantage of the owner of the machinery. The repla…

THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PRECISION BEARING P. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1048/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniwith Co No. 109/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Add. Cit, Range-5 M/S Precision Bearing Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad 28A, Changodar Industrial Estate, Sanand Vs District – Ahmedabad . (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaacp 9205 H Revenue By Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. Dr/ Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.R. Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.03.2022/23.06.2022(Virtual) Date Of 29.06.2022 Pronouncement

ITA 472/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

…current year. 1.3 The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,96,200/- on account of disallowance of Trade Mark Expenditure by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT Vs. Finlay Mills Ltd. (1951) 20 ITR 475 (SC), which was rendered prior to the amendment made in the Act for allowing depreciation on intangible assets like know-how, patents, copy rights, ITA No. 1048/Ahd/2015 & CO No. 109/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 3 of 21 trade marks, license, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law an…

M/S NANOBI DATA AND ANALYTICS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Nanobi Data & Analytics Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 1289/1090/E, Commissioner Of 18Th Cross, 3Rd Sector, Income Tax, Vs. Hsr Layout, Circle – 5(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 102. Bangalore. Pan: Aadcn8822F Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 11/11/2016 By The Ld.Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts Of & The Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Not Giving The Appellant A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard In The Impugned Matter. 3. That Notice Under Section 143(2) Having Been Served After The Expiry Of Time Limit Stipulated Under Section 143(2) Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law & The Order

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)(vii)

…s a software related and trademark is one of the essential requirement and the expenditure incurred in relation to the same are allowable to the business expenditure. It relied on the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal's decision in the case of CIT Vs. Finaly Mills Ltd. 20 ITR 475. I have gone through the above decision and found that the facts are not similar to that of appellants case. All the expenses incurred for the purpose of acquiring trademark are capital in nature therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Assessing officer in disallowance the same, the grounds of appeal is dismissed…

VIACOM 18 MEDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , CIRCLE - 16 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6853/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – 16(1) Zion Bizworld, Subhash Road-A 4Th Floor, Room No. 439 Near Garware Office, Vile Parle (E) Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai - 400057 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacm9164E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nimesh Vora Department By : S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra

…reme Court has categorically held that expenses for registration of Trademark does not bring in any new capital assets and such expenses are revenue in nature. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Finlay Mills Ltd., 20 ITR 475 (SC); ii) PCIT v. Zydus Wellness Ltd., 247 Taxman 397 (Guj); iii) Cadia Healthcare Ltd (Ahd.); iv) Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd., 177 ITR 377 (SC); v) Empire Jute Co Ltd v/s CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC); and vi) USV Ltd v/s DCIT, 24 Taxmann.com 218 (Mum. Trib.). 140. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the authorities b…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 1374/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

ITA 1373/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

…373, 1374, 1254 & 1255/Bang/2019 exclusively for the purposes of the Assessee Company's business allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd.reported in (1951) 20 ITR 475 Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Century Spg., Wvg., & Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in (1947) 15 ITR 105 8. It is stated that a pharmaceutical company can sell its product only after obtaining registration and that the expenditure was incurred for the running of the business therefore revenue in nature and is allowable under secti…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

ITA 1255/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

…373, 1374, 1254 & 1255/Bang/2019 exclusively for the purposes of the Assessee Company's business allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd.reported in (1951) 20 ITR 475 Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Century Spg., Wvg., & Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in (1947) 15 ITR 105 8. It is stated that a pharmaceutical company can sell its product only after obtaining registration and that the expenditure was incurred for the running of the business therefore revenue in nature and is allowable under secti…

M/S. BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13

ITA 1254/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

…373, 1374, 1254 & 1255/Bang/2019 exclusively for the purposes of the Assessee Company's business allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd.reported in (1951) 20 ITR 475 Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Century Spg., Wvg., & Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in (1947) 15 ITR 105 8. It is stated that a pharmaceutical company can sell its product only after obtaining registration and that the expenditure was incurred for the running of the business therefore revenue in nature and is allowable under secti…

M/S. BIOPLUS LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Bioplus Life The Deputy Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 10/1A, 2012-13