https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5570 Interest on money borrowed through an overdraft to discharge income-tax liability was not allowable as a business deduction under section 37(1), because payment of income-tax is a statutory and personal obligation rather than expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business. The Court also refused to entertain a fresh factual contention that tax had in substance been paid out of profits credited to the overdraft account, since that basis had not been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court and lay outside the scope of the referred question. Earlier Calcutta decisions were distinguished on their different factual settings and questions. The answer in favour of the Revenue was therefore maintained. en-us Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Oct 2025 17:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5570 Interest on money borrowed through an overdraft to discharge income-tax liability was not allowable as a business deduction under section 37(1), because payment of income-tax is a statutory and personal obligation rather than expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business. The Court also refused to entertain a fresh factual contention that tax had in substance been paid out of profits credited to the overdraft account, since that basis had not been raised before the Tribunal or the High Court and lay outside the scope of the referred question. Earlier Calcutta decisions were distinguished on their different factual settings and questions. The answer in favour of the Revenue was therefore maintained. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5570