<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1969 (4) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8066</link>
    <description>Royalty paid under an agreement for technical information, trade mark use and manufacturing assistance was held to be revenue expenditure deductible in computing business profits. The court applied the principle that the true character of an outgoing depends on its purpose and surrounding circumstances. Because the payment was recurrent, linked to actual manufacture and sales, and formed part of the commercial arrangement enabling the assessee to carry on business, it was treated as part of the profit-earning process. The court further noted that no capital asset or enduring right was acquired, and the foreign company was not parting with a capital asset by supplying know-how. The royalty was therefore allowable as a deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (4) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8066</link>
      <description>Royalty paid under an agreement for technical information, trade mark use and manufacturing assistance was held to be revenue expenditure deductible in computing business profits. The court applied the principle that the true character of an outgoing depends on its purpose and surrounding circumstances. Because the payment was recurrent, linked to actual manufacture and sales, and formed part of the commercial arrangement enabling the assessee to carry on business, it was treated as part of the profit-earning process. The court further noted that no capital asset or enduring right was acquired, and the foreign company was not parting with a capital asset by supplying know-how. The royalty was therefore allowable as a deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>