<?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>2007 (6) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1764</link>
    <description>The Court determined that the expenditure incurred in setting up a new factory at Pondicherry, the establishment of the new unit, and the reconditioning of machinery were all revenue in nature and thus deductible. It concluded that the Pondicherry unit was an extension of the existing business, and the expenses were not capital but revenue expenditure. As a result, the tax case appeals were dismissed as no substantial legal questions were identified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1764</link>
      <description>The Court determined that the expenditure incurred in setting up a new factory at Pondicherry, the establishment of the new unit, and the reconditioning of machinery were all revenue in nature and thus deductible. It concluded that the Pondicherry unit was an extension of the existing business, and the expenses were not capital but revenue expenditure. As a result, the tax case appeals were dismissed as no substantial legal questions were identified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>