<?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>2010 (12) TMI 844 - ITAT, Chennai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207658</link>
    <description>Income-tax computation turns on the real commercial character of the item and the treatment in the income-tax books, not its presentation in company-law accounts. Bad debts written off in the income-tax books were allowable despite a different company-law treatment. Diminution in the value of securities held to meet statutory liquidity requirements was treated as a business loss and allowed. A genuine long-term capital loss on sale of unquoted shares to a group concern, made under regulatory compulsion and without proof of sham, was also allowable. Recurring non-exclusive royalty for use of a logo was held to be revenue expenditure because it conferred no enduring capital asset.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 May 2013 14:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181134" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 844 - ITAT, Chennai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207658</link>
      <description>Income-tax computation turns on the real commercial character of the item and the treatment in the income-tax books, not its presentation in company-law accounts. Bad debts written off in the income-tax books were allowable despite a different company-law treatment. Diminution in the value of securities held to meet statutory liquidity requirements was treated as a business loss and allowed. A genuine long-term capital loss on sale of unquoted shares to a group concern, made under regulatory compulsion and without proof of sham, was also allowable. Recurring non-exclusive royalty for use of a logo was held to be revenue expenditure because it conferred no enduring capital asset.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>