<?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>2009 (9) TMI 928 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172444</link>
    <description>Expenditure incurred after the business was set up and in the course of activities to secure orders and generate future revenue was treated as revenue expenditure under section 37(1), because the absence of immediate income did not make it capital or pre-operative in nature. Section 35D was held inapplicable since it applies only to expenditure incurred before commencement of business. The expenditure was therefore allowable as business expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2023 12:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394232" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 928 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172444</link>
      <description>Expenditure incurred after the business was set up and in the course of activities to secure orders and generate future revenue was treated as revenue expenditure under section 37(1), because the absence of immediate income did not make it capital or pre-operative in nature. Section 35D was held inapplicable since it applies only to expenditure incurred before commencement of business. The expenditure was therefore allowable as business expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172444</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>