<?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>1998 (3) TMI 38 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15374</link>
    <description>Payment to a foreign collaborator for technical know-how was treated as revenue expenditure because it was made for carrying on the business and improving production. No capital asset was acquired, and the payment did not create an advantage of enduring capital nature. The expenditure was therefore allowable as a business deduction, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:33:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 38 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15374</link>
      <description>Payment to a foreign collaborator for technical know-how was treated as revenue expenditure because it was made for carrying on the business and improving production. No capital asset was acquired, and the payment did not create an advantage of enduring capital nature. The expenditure was therefore allowable as a business deduction, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>