<?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>1959 (12) TMI 40 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168480</link>
    <description>Interest payable under section 18A(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for short payment of advance tax was not deductible in computing business profits. The liability arose because the assessee paid advance tax on its own estimate and the amount fell below the statutory threshold, so the sum was not interest on borrowed capital under section 10(2)(iii). It was also not an outgoing incurred for the purposes of business under section 10(2)(xv), because the obligation was a statutory tax liability and not a business expenditure. Nor did it amount to a trading loss under section 10(1), as it did not arise directly or incidentally from business operations. The deduction claim was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2015 14:14:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378136" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (12) TMI 40 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168480</link>
      <description>Interest payable under section 18A(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for short payment of advance tax was not deductible in computing business profits. The liability arose because the assessee paid advance tax on its own estimate and the amount fell below the statutory threshold, so the sum was not interest on borrowed capital under section 10(2)(iii). It was also not an outgoing incurred for the purposes of business under section 10(2)(xv), because the obligation was a statutory tax liability and not a business expenditure. Nor did it amount to a trading loss under section 10(1), as it did not arise directly or incidentally from business operations. The deduction claim was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>