Judgment :- N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. The assessee is a non-resident company. The ITO completed the assessment for the asst. yr. 1968-69 and found that the assessee had paid a lumpsum of Pounds 10, 000 to its foreign collaborator and claimed the same as deduction in computing its business income. The ITO disallowed the claim on the ground that the expenditure was incurred for the acquisition of technical know-how and held that since the lumpsum amount was paid for the acquisition of technical knowledge from its foreign collaborator to enter into a new production, the amount claimed should be regarded as capital expenditure and accordingly, disallowed the same in the computation of income. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that the lump sum payment for technical know-how was revenue in nature as there was no acquisition of capital assets by the assessee. The above view of the CIT(A) was confirmed by the Tribunal by its order dt. 5th June, 1975. Against the order of the Tribunal, at the instance of the Department, following question of law came up for consideration before this Court in TC No. 624 of 1977. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's payment of Rs. 36, 179 to the foreign company M/s Leslie Hartridge Ltd. of UK should be allowed as a revenue expenditure incurred wholly for the purpose of the business ?" 2. This Court in TC No. 624 of 1977 by judgment dt. 14th October, 1981 directed the Tribunal to rehear the matter in the light of the directions of this Court in TC No. 53 of 1975, dt. 8th March, 1978 and in TC Nos. 164 and 462 of 1979, dt. 18th January, 1979. The Tribunal, on the basis of the directions of this Court in TC No. 624 of 1977 heard the matter once again and following its earlier orders for the asst. yr. 1975-76 in ITA No. 794/Mad/1971-72, dt. 13th March, 1979, and for the asst. yr. 1966-67 and 1967-68, came to the conclusion that the amount paid is an admissible revenue expenditure. yr. 1975-76 in ITA No. 794/Mad/1971-72, dt. 13th March, 1979, and for the asst. yr. 1966-67 and 1967-68, came to the conclusion that the amount paid is an admissible revenue expenditure. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue sought for a reference and the following question of law has been referred for our consideration: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of Rs. 36, 179 to the foreign company M/s Leslie Hartridge Ltd., UK should be allowed as revenue expenditure incurred wholly for the purpose of the business ?" 3. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that there was no acquisition of capital assets and the amount paid was for carrying on the business for better production of the assessee's product. We are of the opinion, since there was no asset acquired by the payment of the said sum, the Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion that the amount paid is a revenue expenditure. We find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal in holding that the amount paid should be allowed as revenue expenditure. 4. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.