https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410495 The Tribunal held that the royalty expenditure paid by the assessee for the non-exclusive use of technology was revenue in nature. The Department's argument that the expenditure should be treated as capital due to enduring benefits was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized the recurring nature of the royalty payments and the absence of exclusive rights or acquisition of technical know-how. Citing precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals, allowing the royalty expenditure as revenue expenditure. All Department appeals were dismissed, affirming the revenue nature of the royalty expenditure. en-us Fri, 30 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Aug 2021 09:19:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410495 The Tribunal held that the royalty expenditure paid by the assessee for the non-exclusive use of technology was revenue in nature. The Department's argument that the expenditure should be treated as capital due to enduring benefits was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized the recurring nature of the royalty payments and the absence of exclusive rights or acquisition of technical know-how. Citing precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals, allowing the royalty expenditure as revenue expenditure. All Department appeals were dismissed, affirming the revenue nature of the royalty expenditure. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410495