https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75308 HC held that the lump sum fee of US $1 million paid under the technical collaboration agreement for acquisition of technology was capital expenditure, as already accepted by the assessee. However, the running royalty linked to domestic and export sales was held to be revenue expenditure. The court emphasized that the royalty was paid not for transfer of technology but for ongoing technical services, varying with sales volume and lacking enduring benefit. Relying on its earlier decision in a similar matter, HC answered the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. en-us Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 14:26:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75308 HC held that the lump sum fee of US $1 million paid under the technical collaboration agreement for acquisition of technology was capital expenditure, as already accepted by the assessee. However, the running royalty linked to domestic and export sales was held to be revenue expenditure. The court emphasized that the royalty was paid not for transfer of technology but for ongoing technical services, varying with sales volume and lacking enduring benefit. Relying on its earlier decision in a similar matter, HC answered the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75308