https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28533 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the payments for technical consultancy services should be classified as revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure. The court held that the consultancy fees were necessary for running the factory and should be treated as part of the factory's operational expenses, distinct from the capital expenditure incurred for setting up the factory. The court emphasized that the enduring benefit of technical know-how alone does not signify capital expenditure, considering the character of the expenditure and the nature of the advantage provided. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:09:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28533 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the payments for technical consultancy services should be classified as revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure. The court held that the consultancy fees were necessary for running the factory and should be treated as part of the factory's operational expenses, distinct from the capital expenditure incurred for setting up the factory. The court emphasized that the enduring benefit of technical know-how alone does not signify capital expenditure, considering the character of the expenditure and the nature of the advantage provided. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28533