<?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 (9) TMI 64 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187895</link>
    <description>Foreign tour expenditure was deductible only if incurred wholly and exclusively for the assessee&#039;s business, profession or vocation under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court applied the statutory test that the sole purpose of the outlay must be business-related, and held that the assessee&#039;s primary object in going abroad was to attend a congress. Any lecture activity or incidental benefit to his magazine or professional standing was merely remote and secondary. The tribunal had applied the wrong standard by asking whether the expense had nothing to do with the profession. The expenditure was therefore not allowable as a deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2016 14:43:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (9) TMI 64 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187895</link>
      <description>Foreign tour expenditure was deductible only if incurred wholly and exclusively for the assessee&#039;s business, profession or vocation under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court applied the statutory test that the sole purpose of the outlay must be business-related, and held that the assessee&#039;s primary object in going abroad was to attend a congress. Any lecture activity or incidental benefit to his magazine or professional standing was merely remote and secondary. The tribunal had applied the wrong standard by asking whether the expense had nothing to do with the profession. The expenditure was therefore not allowable as a deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>