https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71578 The dominant issue was whether royalty paid under a renewed technical know-how and industrial property rights agreement was deductible under s.37(1) or disallowable as commercially unjustified/excessive. The Tribunal held that, though res judicata does not apply in income-tax proceedings, on identical facts the Revenue could not deny a deduction consistently allowed in earlier years, and the AO/CIT(A) erred in disregarding Government approval as lacking evidentiary weight. Relying on the principle underlying CBDT Circular No. 6-P (6-7-1968), it held that payments vetted by a Government wing cannot ordinarily be treated as unreasonable against legitimate business needs, and share allotment materials did not imply free technical know-how. The disallowance/addition was deleted and the appeal partly allowed. en-us Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 12:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71578 The dominant issue was whether royalty paid under a renewed technical know-how and industrial property rights agreement was deductible under s.37(1) or disallowable as commercially unjustified/excessive. The Tribunal held that, though res judicata does not apply in income-tax proceedings, on identical facts the Revenue could not deny a deduction consistently allowed in earlier years, and the AO/CIT(A) erred in disregarding Government approval as lacking evidentiary weight. Relying on the principle underlying CBDT Circular No. 6-P (6-7-1968), it held that payments vetted by a Government wing cannot ordinarily be treated as unreasonable against legitimate business needs, and share allotment materials did not imply free technical know-how. The disallowance/addition was deleted and the appeal partly allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71578