<?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>1956 (3) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183536</link>
    <description>Amounts paid by an assessee to discharge a joint and several borrowing, to the extent attributable to a co-borrower&#039;s default, were treated as deductible where the borrowing was undertaken for the assessee&#039;s business and reflected established commercial practice. The payment was regarded as incurred on grounds of commercial expediency in the ordinary course of business, and as a loss arising from the business transaction by which the funds were procured. It was not treated as a mere loss of borrowed capital used in the assessee&#039;s own business. The amount was therefore considered deductible as business expenditure, or alternatively as a trading loss.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:32:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (3) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183536</link>
      <description>Amounts paid by an assessee to discharge a joint and several borrowing, to the extent attributable to a co-borrower&#039;s default, were treated as deductible where the borrowing was undertaken for the assessee&#039;s business and reflected established commercial practice. The payment was regarded as incurred on grounds of commercial expediency in the ordinary course of business, and as a loss arising from the business transaction by which the funds were procured. It was not treated as a mere loss of borrowed capital used in the assessee&#039;s own business. The amount was therefore considered deductible as business expenditure, or alternatively as a trading loss.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183536</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>