https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24113 The court held that the royalty payment for continuing know-how was a revenue expenditure, not a capital expenditure. The payment was deemed necessary for acquiring knowledge and skills crucial for the efficient operation of the business, without conferring an enduring capital advantage. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, rejecting the Revenue's argument that part of the payment was attributable to capital. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the collaboration agreement terms and relevant precedents, ultimately concluding that the entire royalty payment should be treated as revenue expenditure. en-us Tue, 14 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:59:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24113 The court held that the royalty payment for continuing know-how was a revenue expenditure, not a capital expenditure. The payment was deemed necessary for acquiring knowledge and skills crucial for the efficient operation of the business, without conferring an enduring capital advantage. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, rejecting the Revenue's argument that part of the payment was attributable to capital. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the collaboration agreement terms and relevant precedents, ultimately concluding that the entire royalty payment should be treated as revenue expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24113