What is CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. authority for?

Expenditure that is incurred for the protection of a running business without generating a new asset is deductible as a business expense. Such expenditure does not result in an enduring benefit of a capital nature.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd.?

38 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. (20 ITR 475), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 145, Section 147, Section 151, Section 37, Section 10(2)(xv).

CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. (20 ITR 475)

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Troikaa Pharmaceuticlas Limited, Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1325/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri T. S. Kapoorआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1325/Ahd/2017 With Cross Objection No.31/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.D.R

Section 35

…s noticed that the court as decided that the expenditure incurred by company in defending/protecting the patent arc of not in the nature of enduring benefit and by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT v. Finley Mills Ltd. (1951) 20 ITR 475 decided as under: " With respect to the expenditure for trademark and patent, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee rightly pointed out that such issue was examined by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Finley Mills Ltd. [1951] 20 ITR 475, wherein it was held and observed as under: "In our opinion, the contention urged on behalf of th…

Canara Bank vs. CIT

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Canara Bank, Bsca Section, Head Office, J C Road, Bengaluru-560 002. Pan: Aaacc 6106 G … Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 43B

…set. Without prejudice to the above, it has been held various decisions that the expenditure incurred in registering the trade. mark has to be treated as revenue expenditure. We rely on the following decisions in this regard: - CIT vs. Finaly Mills Ltd (1951) 20 ITR 475 (Se) - CIT vs. Century Spng. Wvg. And Mfg.co.ltd (1947) 151TR 105 (Bom) - Erode Transporters (p) Ltd vs. CIT (1969) 711TR 283 (Madras) From the above, it can be seen that the registration of a trade mark does not give raise to capital expenditure. Since two views are possible, the view adopted by the Learned Assessing Officer can not be treated as…

Smt. Seema Ajay Ranka, Baroda vs. The Addl. CIT., Range-2, Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3019/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd in tax appeal no.752 of 2012 and which in turn relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Finlay Mills Ltd (20 ITR 475 (SC)), which was delivered when trade mark was not an asset under I.T. Law. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that under I.T. Law patent, which is an intellectual property right is recognized as asset of enduring nature. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as in fac…

Galaxy Medicare, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2011-12 Galaxy Medicare Ltd., Plot Vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), No.2, Zone-D, Phase-A, Bhubaneswar. Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. AAACD 7880 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR Date of Hearing : 23 /05/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 26/05/2017 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, dated 18.11.2016, for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Ground Nos.1 &…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3061/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…and identity which is a capital expenditure and on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. 70. Ld. AR submitted that the issue of allowability of this expenditure is covered in favour of the assesse by the decision of CIT vs. Finlay Mills Limited – 20 ITR 475 (SC) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Ltd. – 237 ITR 415. It was further pressed that Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Erode Transports Private Ltd. vs. CIT in 71 ITR 283 (Madras) has also held that registration of trademark is allowable expenditure. 71. Against this, ld. DR relied on the…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2677/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…and identity which is a capital expenditure and on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. 70. Ld. AR submitted that the issue of allowability of this expenditure is covered in favour of the assesse by the decision of CIT vs. Finlay Mills Limited – 20 ITR 475 (SC) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Ltd. – 237 ITR 415. It was further pressed that Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Erode Transports Private Ltd. vs. CIT in 71 ITR 283 (Madras) has also held that registration of trademark is allowable expenditure. 71. Against this, ld. DR relied on the…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sjs Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 680/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

…siness and is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and there is no enduring benefit of a capital nature as there was no acquisition of an asset. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. 20 ITR 475 and CIT v. Panacea Biotech Ltd., 6 Taxcorp (DT) 50157 (Delhi). 34. The ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the AO has not pointed out as to how the expenditure has resulted in an enduring benefit and the decisions relied upon by the assessee is squarely applicable to assessee’s case. He therefore allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. Aggrieve…

Sjs Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 660/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

…siness and is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and there is no enduring benefit of a capital nature as there was no acquisition of an asset. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Finlay Mills Ltd. 20 ITR 475 and CIT v. Panacea Biotech Ltd., 6 Taxcorp (DT) 50157 (Delhi). 34. The ld. CIT(Appeals) held that the AO has not pointed out as to how the expenditure has resulted in an enduring benefit and the decisions relied upon by the assessee is squarely applicable to assessee’s case. He therefore allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue. Aggrieve…