<?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>1951 (1) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175611</link>
    <description>Expenditure paid under an agreement to keep a competing interest out of the assessee&#039;s business area was treated as revenue outlay, not capital or personal expenditure, because no business asset was acquired and the payment was made wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The text states that the amount was therefore deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2015 13:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406903" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (1) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175611</link>
      <description>Expenditure paid under an agreement to keep a competing interest out of the assessee&#039;s business area was treated as revenue outlay, not capital or personal expenditure, because no business asset was acquired and the payment was made wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The text states that the amount was therefore deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>