<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1983 (3) TMI 109 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62794</link>
    <description>A lump sum premium paid to obtain lease rights for a cinema hall was treated as capital expenditure because it secured an enduring advantage in the capital field, distinct from the separate annual rent payable for continued enjoyment of the lease. The amount paid during the accounting year formed part of the same premium and was therefore not deductible as revenue expenditure. The earlier balance also did not qualify for deduction in the year under consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 17:55:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=101239" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (3) TMI 109 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62794</link>
      <description>A lump sum premium paid to obtain lease rights for a cinema hall was treated as capital expenditure because it secured an enduring advantage in the capital field, distinct from the separate annual rent payable for continued enjoyment of the lease. The amount paid during the accounting year formed part of the same premium and was therefore not deductible as revenue expenditure. The earlier balance also did not qualify for deduction in the year under consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62794</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>