https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258450 The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision that the sum added on account of technical fee was revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The Court emphasized the fact-dependent nature of distinguishing between revenue and capital expenditure, citing past decisions. It concluded that the assessee's payment for access to technical knowledge did not constitute capital expenditure as it only granted access to technology without an absolute transfer. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose, affirming the ITAT's ruling. en-us Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Apr 2015 09:02:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258450 The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision that the sum added on account of technical fee was revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The Court emphasized the fact-dependent nature of distinguishing between revenue and capital expenditure, citing past decisions. It concluded that the assessee's payment for access to technical knowledge did not constitute capital expenditure as it only granted access to technology without an absolute transfer. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose, affirming the ITAT's ruling. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258450