<?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>1964 (11) TMI 108 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188129</link>
    <description>A provisional deposit made under a stay order towards mesne profits was not treated as rent for income-tax purposes because it retained the character of compensation for unlawful occupation after expiry of the lease. The expenditure on extensive theatre renovation was also disallowed, as current repairs cover only necessary recurring maintenance and not major alterations that create an enduring advantage. Since the works produced substantial improvement and could not be segregated into allowable repair items, the outlay was held to be capital in nature and not deductible as business expenditure. Both questions were answered against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:14:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448411" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (11) TMI 108 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188129</link>
      <description>A provisional deposit made under a stay order towards mesne profits was not treated as rent for income-tax purposes because it retained the character of compensation for unlawful occupation after expiry of the lease. The expenditure on extensive theatre renovation was also disallowed, as current repairs cover only necessary recurring maintenance and not major alterations that create an enduring advantage. Since the works produced substantial improvement and could not be segregated into allowable repair items, the outlay was held to be capital in nature and not deductible as business expenditure. Both questions were answered against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>