<?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>2011 (7) TMI 807 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211204</link>
    <description>Retrenchment compensation paid on closure of a hotel business was held to be deductible against the assessee&#039;s franchise business because the activities formed one integrated business. The decisive test was unity of control, supported by common management, common business organisation, common administration and a common place of business, rather than similarity in the nature of the activities. Compensation payable under the retrenchment provisions was treated as a mandatory statutory liability and, where incurred for a single commercial undertaking, as allowable business expenditure. The deduction was therefore accepted in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184625" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 807 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211204</link>
      <description>Retrenchment compensation paid on closure of a hotel business was held to be deductible against the assessee&#039;s franchise business because the activities formed one integrated business. The decisive test was unity of control, supported by common management, common business organisation, common administration and a common place of business, rather than similarity in the nature of the activities. Compensation payable under the retrenchment provisions was treated as a mandatory statutory liability and, where incurred for a single commercial undertaking, as allowable business expenditure. The deduction was therefore accepted in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211204</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>