https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38730 The High Court held that 25% of 'technical aid fees' paid by the assessee to a foreign company constituted capital expenditure rather than deductible revenue expenditure. The Court emphasized the enduring benefit received by the assessee from the technical assistance, distinguishing it from a mere purchase of business. Therefore, the disallowed amounts were upheld as capital expenditure, overturning the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee. This case clarifies the distinction between revenue and capital expenditure in the context of technical assistance agreements based on the enduring benefits derived by the assessee. en-us Tue, 05 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Apr 2010 16:09:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38730 The High Court held that 25% of 'technical aid fees' paid by the assessee to a foreign company constituted capital expenditure rather than deductible revenue expenditure. The Court emphasized the enduring benefit received by the assessee from the technical assistance, distinguishing it from a mere purchase of business. Therefore, the disallowed amounts were upheld as capital expenditure, overturning the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee. This case clarifies the distinction between revenue and capital expenditure in the context of technical assistance agreements based on the enduring benefits derived by the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Apr 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38730