https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38967 The court held that the expenditure on drawings, designs, and patterns was allowable as revenue expenditure, as it was for exploiting a license agreement and not for acquiring a capital asset. The expenditure on presents to the sales manager and officials was also deemed allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it was incurred to establish goodwill and facilitate business operations. However, the expenditure paid to Hayeka Engineering A.G. Zurich for expert opinion was not allowable as it was considered capital in nature for acquiring a capital asset. en-us Fri, 13 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:07:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38967 The court held that the expenditure on drawings, designs, and patterns was allowable as revenue expenditure, as it was for exploiting a license agreement and not for acquiring a capital asset. The expenditure on presents to the sales manager and officials was also deemed allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it was incurred to establish goodwill and facilitate business operations. However, the expenditure paid to Hayeka Engineering A.G. Zurich for expert opinion was not allowable as it was considered capital in nature for acquiring a capital asset. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 13 Feb 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38967