<?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>2001 (10) TMI 7 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6052</link>
    <description>Expenditure incurred for a public issue of shares was treated as capital expenditure because the assessee&#039;s object was to increase share capital. Compliance with a Reserve Bank direction to meet regulatory requirements did not change the character of the spend. The matter was said to be covered by the earlier decision on expenditure for increasing share capital, and the question was answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2018 17:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 7 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6052</link>
      <description>Expenditure incurred for a public issue of shares was treated as capital expenditure because the assessee&#039;s object was to increase share capital. Compliance with a Reserve Bank direction to meet regulatory requirements did not change the character of the spend. The matter was said to be covered by the earlier decision on expenditure for increasing share capital, and the question was answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6052</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>