https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29541 The court determined that a portion of the royalty paid under a technical aid agreement was capital expenditure. The agreement involved technical advice, machinery supply, and training by a foreign company to an Indian manufacturer. The court upheld the disallowance of 25% of the royalty as capital expenditure, citing the enduring advantage gained from the trade marks and technical know-how. Precedents were referenced to support the decision, emphasizing that expenditure classification hinges on agreement terms and benefits received. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of revenue with costs awarded to the revenue. en-us Wed, 08 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:20:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29541 The court determined that a portion of the royalty paid under a technical aid agreement was capital expenditure. The agreement involved technical advice, machinery supply, and training by a foreign company to an Indian manufacturer. The court upheld the disallowance of 25% of the royalty as capital expenditure, citing the enduring advantage gained from the trade marks and technical know-how. Precedents were referenced to support the decision, emphasizing that expenditure classification hinges on agreement terms and benefits received. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of revenue with costs awarded to the revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29541