https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55962 The Tribunal determined that the amount received for the transfer of technical know-how, along with the scooter manufacturing division, constituted a capital receipt. It held that the technical know-how was a capital asset, and the price for its transfer was not a revenue receipt but a capital receipt. The Tribunal also found that exemption provisions under section 47(iv) applied as the transfer was to a wholly owned subsidiary. Emphasizing the distinction between revenue and capital receipts from know-how transfers, the Tribunal concluded that the amount received did not represent a revenue receipt. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision that the receipt was a capital receipt. en-us Mon, 15 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:12:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55962 The Tribunal determined that the amount received for the transfer of technical know-how, along with the scooter manufacturing division, constituted a capital receipt. It held that the technical know-how was a capital asset, and the price for its transfer was not a revenue receipt but a capital receipt. The Tribunal also found that exemption provisions under section 47(iv) applied as the transfer was to a wholly owned subsidiary. Emphasizing the distinction between revenue and capital receipts from know-how transfers, the Tribunal concluded that the amount received did not represent a revenue receipt. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision that the receipt was a capital receipt. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55962