https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5088 Payments under a technical collaboration agreement were treated as revenue expenditure because they secured limited technical know-how, processes, formulae, information and licences for a fixed period without creating a capital asset or enduring advantage. The claim could not be treated as scientific research expenditure, since the research was carried on by the foreign company and the assessee only reimbursed part of its cost; however, the recurring payments were allowable as business expenditure. Reimbursement of the share of costs in a patent infringement suit was not deductible, because the assessee had no proved right in the relevant patents or trade mark, the litigation predated its existence, and the liability had not been shown to have devolved on it or to protect its own trading interest. en-us Fri, 15 Dec 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Mar 2015 15:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5088 Payments under a technical collaboration agreement were treated as revenue expenditure because they secured limited technical know-how, processes, formulae, information and licences for a fixed period without creating a capital asset or enduring advantage. The claim could not be treated as scientific research expenditure, since the research was carried on by the foreign company and the assessee only reimbursed part of its cost; however, the recurring payments were allowable as business expenditure. Reimbursement of the share of costs in a patent infringement suit was not deductible, because the assessee had no proved right in the relevant patents or trade mark, the litigation predated its existence, and the liability had not been shown to have devolved on it or to protect its own trading interest. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 15 Dec 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5088