9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the entire payments made to M/s. Dunlop Rim and Wheel Ltd. under the collaboration agreement constituted revenue expenditure and allowable accordingly ? " The assessee-company carries on business in the manufacture of wheels for trucks, tanks and tractors. The reference relates to ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference on the question already extracted. The learned counsel for the Commissioner contended that the expenditure had been incurred for commencing a business and that, in any event, part Of the expenditure should have been attributed to capital account. The Tribunal, after referring to the terms of the agreement, which is unfortunately not annexed to the statement of the case, and after re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n enduring nature. The services obviously related to the day-to-day running of the factory and the manufacturing of the machinery. We accordingly hold that all the payments were of a revenue nature and were permissible deductions." The learned counsel for the Commissioner took identical contentions as in T. C. Nos. 539 to 546 of 1977 (CIT v. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. [1982] 136 ITR 315), which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee had not paid any consideration for the acquisition of any asset or any benefit of an enduring nature. Understood in that light, we do not find that there is any error committed by the Tribunal in holding that the expenditure was of a revenue nature. The result is that the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
