https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75368 HC upheld the CIT(A) and ITAT findings that royalty paid for technical know-how was revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The agreement provided for running royalty payable annually, computed per piece of catalytic converters and exhaust mufflers produced, making the outlay directly linked to production volume. HC distinguished the SC decision in Southern Switchgears Ltd., where a lump sum royalty was held to be capital in nature, noting the fundamentally different terms of payment. As a result, HC confirmed the assessee's claim of revenue deduction for royalty and rejected the Revenue's challenge. en-us Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Nov 2025 16:48:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75368 HC upheld the CIT(A) and ITAT findings that royalty paid for technical know-how was revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The agreement provided for running royalty payable annually, computed per piece of catalytic converters and exhaust mufflers produced, making the outlay directly linked to production volume. HC distinguished the SC decision in Southern Switchgears Ltd., where a lump sum royalty was held to be capital in nature, noting the fundamentally different terms of payment. As a result, HC confirmed the assessee's claim of revenue deduction for royalty and rejected the Revenue's challenge. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75368