https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15354 The court ruled in favor of the assessee in Tax Case Nos. 1465, 1536, 982, and 985 of 1986, allowing the sums paid under the collaboration agreement as revenue expenditure. The court considered the limited period and nature of the technical knowledge, concluding that the payment was for improving the existing business, not setting up a new one. By applying relevant precedents and the test from a Supreme Court case, the court determined that the payment should be treated as revenue expenditure, rejecting the Revenue's argument for capital expenditure based on enduring benefits. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:45:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15354 The court ruled in favor of the assessee in Tax Case Nos. 1465, 1536, 982, and 985 of 1986, allowing the sums paid under the collaboration agreement as revenue expenditure. The court considered the limited period and nature of the technical knowledge, concluding that the payment was for improving the existing business, not setting up a new one. By applying relevant precedents and the test from a Supreme Court case, the court determined that the payment should be treated as revenue expenditure, rejecting the Revenue's argument for capital expenditure based on enduring benefits. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15354