https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57777 A payment for a limited right to use another party's trade mark for ten years was treated as revenue in character because it did not transfer ownership or create an enduring asset, and the arrangement was not shown to be a sham or to exceed arm's length value. The analysis also supports higher depreciation on moulds at 40% where the decisive factor is their use in manufacturing rubber and plastic goods, not the existence of a separate factory for that activity. The commentary therefore centres on revenue-versus-capital characterisation and the functional test for enhanced depreciation. en-us Tue, 30 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jul 2024 15:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57777 A payment for a limited right to use another party's trade mark for ten years was treated as revenue in character because it did not transfer ownership or create an enduring asset, and the arrangement was not shown to be a sham or to exceed arm's length value. The analysis also supports higher depreciation on moulds at 40% where the decisive factor is their use in manufacturing rubber and plastic goods, not the existence of a separate factory for that activity. The commentary therefore centres on revenue-versus-capital characterisation and the functional test for enhanced depreciation. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57777