← All Phrases

“enduring benefit”

Business ExpensesSection 37Section 371,056 judgments

The decision most relied on for enduring benefit is Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (124 ITR 1), cited in 622 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on enduring benefit

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT
124 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
622
citing judgments

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 802 · 1997 · Supreme Court
568
citing judgments

Expenditure that provides an enduring benefit should be amortized over its useful life, not allowed as a deduction in a single year, to prevent a distorted picture of profits. Specifically, premium paid on debentures for their issue should be amortized on a straight-line method over the life of the debentures.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT
38 ITR 601 · 1960 · Supreme Court
346
citing judgments

Expenditure must be commercially expedient for carrying on the business, and it is not for revenue authorities to dictate how an assessee should conduct its business. The court will not question the business expediency of a transaction, even if a third party also benefits.

Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT
372 ITR 605 · 2015 · Supreme Court
343
citing judgments

An expenditure does not automatically become capital in nature merely because it results in some enduring benefit for the assessee; it can be treated as revenue expenditure if incurred for genuine business purposes.

Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT
177 ITR 377 · 1989 · Supreme Court
275
citing judgments

Expenditure that provides a commercial advantage of an enduring nature may still be classified as revenue expenditure if its purpose is to facilitate existing trading operations, improve business efficiency, or upgrade existing products, depending on the specific context and objective.

CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd.
233 ITR 468 · 1998 · Supreme Court
246
citing judgments

Expenditure providing an enduring advantage, such as upfront lease rent for land, is revenue expenditure if no capital asset is acquired or generated, allowing for deduction under Section 37, even when capitalized in the books of account.

Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 798 · 1997 · Supreme Court
228
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for increasing a company's share capital or expanding its capital base, such as expenses related to the issue of shares, constitutes capital expenditure. Such expenses are not deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even if they incidentally benefit the business.

Judgments citing enduring benefit

Shellinformation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2308/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2019-20
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 234DSection 270A

held the view that the expression 'in available only means that the recipient of the service should be in a position to derive an enduring benefit and be in a position to utilize the knowledge or knowhow in future on his own". Here, information technology relating to design, engineering, manufacturing

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

M/S Ge T&D India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 725/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 725/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010 - 11 Ge T&D India Ltd., The Dcit, 19/1, Ioc Building, Gst Road, Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Pallavaram, Chennai Chennai – 600 043. Pan: Aaacg 2115R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadhri, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandian, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandian, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

Development Charges (Rs. 66378056) and IST expenses SLE (RS. 352984204) needs to be considered as capital expenditure only. Further, these payments are intended for enduring benefit. The claim of the assessee shall be disallowed and brought to taxation. 2. The assessee had deducted an amount of Rs.44 ... Para No.20/IIA in LAR No.11/87-062/2014-15. The AO i.e., DCIT, Large Tax Payer Unit-1 considered this objection and opposed the same by nature providing enduring benefit to the assessee. The AO considered the following decisions in favour of assessee- a) CIT Vs. Rane Madras 2007 TIOL 551 (HC Madras

ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit 2, Chennai vs. M/S India Japan Lighting Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 719/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 718 & 719/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. N V Balaji, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14A

manufacturing methods of products and license granted to the assessee to manufacture and sell the products is in nature of capital expenditure, which gives enduring benefit to the assessee. :-4-: ITA. No: 718 & 719/Chny/2018 4. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders ... that royalty payment for using technology provided by foreign company is revenue in nature which cannot be treated as capital in nature, which gives enduring benefit to the assessee. The Ld. DR, although admitted fact that the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, but supported order

ACIT Large Tax Payer Unit 2, Chennai vs. M/S India Japan Lighting Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 718/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 718 & 719/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. N V Balaji, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14A

manufacturing methods of products and license granted to the assessee to manufacture and sell the products is in nature of capital expenditure, which gives enduring benefit to the assessee. :-4-: ITA. No: 718 & 719/Chny/2018 4. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders ... that royalty payment for using technology provided by foreign company is revenue in nature which cannot be treated as capital in nature, which gives enduring benefit to the assessee. The Ld. DR, although admitted fact that the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, but supported order

M/S United Spirits Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3091/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel and Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR
Section 115PSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

reason that these expenses are brand promotion expenditures of USL logo, it promotes the brand the assessee, gives enduring benefit and hence capital in nature. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 12.6.1 Similar issue has been considered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case ... through the details of expenditure incurred by assessee under the head managerial expenses, we are of the opinion that it had not got any enduring benefit from the expenditure incurred nor did the expenditure create any capital asset. Therefore, we do not want to interfere with the order

Standard Chartered Global Business Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 2092/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheila Parthasarathy (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9

Tribunal. Further, ‘make available’ clause would be satisfied only when the services results in transmitting technical knowledge so that the payee could derive an enduring benefit and utilize the knowledge or know how on his own in future without the aid of service provider. In the present case, since there

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2139/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

that this entire expenditure was incurred by the assessee for the use of land for a limited period and as no asset of enduring benefit came into existence, the entire expenditure has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. In support of this contention, he has relied on various authorities ... incurred by the assessee company to acquire the surface rights as well as the right to possession in respect of the leasehold land hit-enduring benefits and the same being not in the revenue field, the decision in the case of Gotan Lime Syndicate (supra) has no application

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2138/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

that this entire expenditure was incurred by the assessee for the use of land for a limited period and as no asset of enduring benefit came into existence, the entire expenditure has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. In support of this contention, he has relied on various authorities ... incurred by the assessee company to acquire the surface rights as well as the right to possession in respect of the leasehold land hit-enduring benefits and the same being not in the revenue field, the decision in the case of Gotan Lime Syndicate (supra) has no application

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2137/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

that this entire expenditure was incurred by the assessee for the use of land for a limited period and as no asset of enduring benefit came into existence, the entire expenditure has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. In support of this contention, he has relied on various authorities ... incurred by the assessee company to acquire the surface rights as well as the right to possession in respect of the leasehold land hit-enduring benefits and the same being not in the revenue field, the decision in the case of Gotan Lime Syndicate (supra) has no application

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2136/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

that this entire expenditure was incurred by the assessee for the use of land for a limited period and as no asset of enduring benefit came into existence, the entire expenditure has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. In support of this contention, he has relied on various authorities ... incurred by the assessee company to acquire the surface rights as well as the right to possession in respect of the leasehold land hit-enduring benefits and the same being not in the revenue field, the decision in the case of Gotan Lime Syndicate (supra) has no application

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2135/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

that this entire expenditure was incurred by the assessee for the use of land for a limited period and as no asset of enduring benefit came into existence, the entire expenditure has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. In support of this contention, he has relied on various authorities ... incurred by the assessee company to acquire the surface rights as well as the right to possession in respect of the leasehold land hit-enduring benefits and the same being not in the revenue field, the decision in the case of Gotan Lime Syndicate (supra) has no application

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 449/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Income Tax – No.1, First Main Road, Officer (Osd), United India Colony, Company Circle-V(2), Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs.Sree Lakshmi Valli, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)

disallowed a sum of Rs.18,24,821/- towards expenditure incurred for purchase of software as capital in nature, since, the assessee derived enduring benefit, but has allowed depreciation. The Ld.CIT(A) by following the decision of CIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 15, allowed relief and held ... improving the efficiency of existing system with a view to keep business pace with latest technology. Therefore, the same does not give any enduring benefit to the assessee and thus, cannot be considered as capital expenditure. 9.2 The Ld.DR, supporting the order of the AO, submitted that expenditure incurred

Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO (OSD), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 121/CHNY/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.121/Chny/2011 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S.Pentasoft Technologies Ltd., V. The Income Tax – No.1, First Main Road, Officer (Osd), United India Colony, Company Circle-V(2), Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaacp 1895 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs.Sree Lakshmi Valli, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)

disallowed a sum of Rs.18,24,821/- towards expenditure incurred for purchase of software as capital in nature, since, the assessee derived enduring benefit, but has allowed depreciation. The Ld.CIT(A) by following the decision of CIT v. Southern Roadways Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 15, allowed relief and held ... improving the efficiency of existing system with a view to keep business pace with latest technology. Therefore, the same does not give any enduring benefit to the assessee and thus, cannot be considered as capital expenditure. 9.2 The Ld.DR, supporting the order of the AO, submitted that expenditure incurred

M/S United Breweries Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 481/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT –DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

held that ‘brand’ being an intangible asset, any expense incurred towards development of brand or brand promotion leads to an enduring benefit and should be capitalized. The AO therefore disallowed an amount of 23 M/s.United Breweries Limited. Rs.13,76,00,000 and added the same to the returned income ... reason that these expenses are brand promotion expenditures of USL logo, it promotes the brand the assessee, gives enduring benefit and hence capital in nature. The DRP confirmed the action of the AO. 12.6.1 Similar issue has been considered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 134/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

reason that the said expenditure was incurred for maintaining uniformity in the franchisee stores and the Assessee neither owns nor derives any enduring benefit on such expenditure, 37. The AO classified the expenditure as capital in nature for the reasons that (i) the Form 3CD filed ... acquiring of assets; and (iii) it is one time investment by the Assessee and lifetime of the assets are more than one year giving enduring benefit to the Assessee. 38. The AO accepted the alternative claim of the Assessee to allow depreciation on the said amount (worked

M/S Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commisssioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2834/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(3)

reason that the said expenditure was incurred for maintaining uniformity in the franchisee stores and the Assessee neither owns nor derives any enduring benefit on such expenditure, 37. The AO classified the expenditure as capital in nature for the reasons that (i) the Form 3CD filed ... acquiring of assets; and (iii) it is one time investment by the Assessee and lifetime of the assets are more than one year giving enduring benefit to the Assessee. 38. The AO accepted the alternative claim of the Assessee to allow depreciation on the said amount (worked

Intrado Ec India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 2CSection 40Section 92C

available”, the service should be aimed at and result in transmitting technical knowledge etc so that the payer of the service could derive an enduring benefit and utilize the knowledge or know-how on his own in future without the aid of the service provider. In other words

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that expenditure have been incurred in investment for getting enduring benefit and for the purpose of expanding the business in future. The AO following the approach adopted in assessment years 2012–13 and 2013–14 held the expenditure to be capital ... materialised and hence, squarely allowable as revenue expenditure in as much as no capital asset came into existence of the assessee which would derive enduring benefit of the assessee.‖ 9. We further find that coordinate bench of the Tribunal vide another order in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd vs ACIT

M/S. Biesse Manufacturing Company Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 338/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri, Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar K. Ganeshan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 92C

like. The service should be aimed at and result in transmitting technical knowledge, etc., so that the payer of the service could derive an enduring benefit and utilize the knowledge or know-how on IT(TP)A No.338/Bang/2021 Page 27 of 32 his own in future without