<?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>1955 (2) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189456</link>
    <description>Section 42(2) was construed to apply where a resident assessee carried on a profit-yielding business in the taxable territories and dealt with a non-resident with whom there was a close connection. The provision did not require the non-resident to carry on the same business as the resident, or even to conduct business in the same sense in the taxable territories. The Court accepted that ship repairs done at cost could still form part of the non-resident&#039;s profit-making operations because seaworthy ships were necessary for earning profits. On those facts, section 42(2) applied and the question was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:06:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454856" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (2) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189456</link>
      <description>Section 42(2) was construed to apply where a resident assessee carried on a profit-yielding business in the taxable territories and dealt with a non-resident with whom there was a close connection. The provision did not require the non-resident to carry on the same business as the resident, or even to conduct business in the same sense in the taxable territories. The Court accepted that ship repairs done at cost could still form part of the non-resident&#039;s profit-making operations because seaworthy ships were necessary for earning profits. On those facts, section 42(2) applied and the question was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189456</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>