<?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>1965 (7) TMI 57 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183748</link>
    <description>A legal question may be entertained in reference if it arises out of the Tribunal&#039;s order, even where a specific alternative statutory basis was not separately urged below, provided the principal deduction controversy was before the tax authorities. On the merits, interest paid on the unpaid price of assets, payable until shares were allotted, was held not deductible under section 10(2)(xv) because it was neither interest on borrowed money for business purposes nor an outgoing wholly and exclusively incurred in carrying on the business. The payment was treated as arising from delay in allotment pending statutory sanction, and not as a business expense or part of the profit-making process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:41:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (7) TMI 57 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183748</link>
      <description>A legal question may be entertained in reference if it arises out of the Tribunal&#039;s order, even where a specific alternative statutory basis was not separately urged below, provided the principal deduction controversy was before the tax authorities. On the merits, interest paid on the unpaid price of assets, payable until shares were allotted, was held not deductible under section 10(2)(xv) because it was neither interest on borrowed money for business purposes nor an outgoing wholly and exclusively incurred in carrying on the business. The payment was treated as arising from delay in allotment pending statutory sanction, and not as a business expense or part of the profit-making process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183748</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>