<?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>2015 (4) TMI 621 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258740</link>
    <description>A statutory transfer to a reserve fund under co-operative societies law was treated as an appropriation of profits, not a diversion of income at source by overriding title, because the fund remained available for the society&#039;s business and the State did not take title to the income before it reached the assessee. The amount was therefore taxable in the assessee&#039;s hands. The transfer was also not allowable as business expenditure under the Income-tax Act, since it was merely setting aside profits for future business use and not an outgoing incurred for business expenditure. Accordingly, no deduction was permissible on that account.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 621 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258740</link>
      <description>A statutory transfer to a reserve fund under co-operative societies law was treated as an appropriation of profits, not a diversion of income at source by overriding title, because the fund remained available for the society&#039;s business and the State did not take title to the income before it reached the assessee. The amount was therefore taxable in the assessee&#039;s hands. The transfer was also not allowable as business expenditure under the Income-tax Act, since it was merely setting aside profits for future business use and not an outgoing incurred for business expenditure. Accordingly, no deduction was permissible on that account.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>