<?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>1972 (1) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6338</link>
    <description>Payments made under dissolution and partnership deeds for use of goodwill were treated as revenue expenditure deductible in computing business income, because the arrangements did not fix any lump sum purchase price or definite period for liquidation of a debt. The payments depended on a fluctuating share of profits and continued only while the business was carried on in the firm name. The surrounding covenants, including restrictions on assignment and the requirement for similar terms on transfer, showed a licence to use the goodwill rather than an outright transfer of a capital asset. A dissent would have treated the arrangement as a sale of goodwill and the payments as capital consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (1) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6338</link>
      <description>Payments made under dissolution and partnership deeds for use of goodwill were treated as revenue expenditure deductible in computing business income, because the arrangements did not fix any lump sum purchase price or definite period for liquidation of a debt. The payments depended on a fluctuating share of profits and continued only while the business was carried on in the firm name. The surrounding covenants, including restrictions on assignment and the requirement for similar terms on transfer, showed a licence to use the goodwill rather than an outright transfer of a capital asset. A dissent would have treated the arrangement as a sale of goodwill and the payments as capital consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6338</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>