<?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>1971 (10) TMI 6 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6303</link>
    <description>Payments made under a verbal arrangement to secure coal shipments and restrain a rival exporter from competing in the Burma trade were revenue in character because they were incurred in the ordinary course of trading. The assistance element was treated as business expenditure, and the restraint arrangement did not create any capital asset or enduring advantage: it was terminable at will, linked to shipments, and produced only a transitory trading benefit. The expenditure was therefore allowable as a business deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (10) TMI 6 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6303</link>
      <description>Payments made under a verbal arrangement to secure coal shipments and restrain a rival exporter from competing in the Burma trade were revenue in character because they were incurred in the ordinary course of trading. The assistance element was treated as business expenditure, and the restraint arrangement did not create any capital asset or enduring advantage: it was terminable at will, linked to shipments, and produced only a transitory trading benefit. The expenditure was therefore allowable as a business deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>