<?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>1961 (4) TMI 105 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188552</link>
    <description>Expenditure incurred to secure a proposed company&#039;s managing agency was treated as capital in nature and not as an allowable deduction, especially where no contract or ordinary-course reimbursement was proved and the company was never formed. Spending on leased guest house premises was not allowed as repairs because the material did not show current repairs, but rather additions or alterations amounting to capital improvement, and the evidentiary basis was insufficient. Amounts spent for promotion of another company were also not deductible, as irrecoverability for bad-debt treatment was not proved and the claim could not be brought within business expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2016 16:52:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450637" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (4) TMI 105 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188552</link>
      <description>Expenditure incurred to secure a proposed company&#039;s managing agency was treated as capital in nature and not as an allowable deduction, especially where no contract or ordinary-course reimbursement was proved and the company was never formed. Spending on leased guest house premises was not allowed as repairs because the material did not show current repairs, but rather additions or alterations amounting to capital improvement, and the evidentiary basis was insufficient. Amounts spent for promotion of another company were also not deductible, as irrecoverability for bad-debt treatment was not proved and the claim could not be brought within business expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188552</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>