<?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>1966 (6) TMI 1 - MYSORE High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6697</link>
    <description>Consultancy expenditure incurred for preparing budget forms, budgetary control and standard cost evaluation was held to be deductible as business expenditure because it was spent to improve and rationalise the assessee&#039;s administration. The expression &quot;for the purpose of business&quot; was treated as wide enough to cover measures connected with rationalisation and modernisation of business administration. On the facts, the consultant&#039;s fee was regarded as wholly and exclusively laid out for the business, and the contention that it created a capital asset or enduring benefit was rejected. The amount was therefore allowed as a deduction in computing income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45778" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (6) TMI 1 - MYSORE High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6697</link>
      <description>Consultancy expenditure incurred for preparing budget forms, budgetary control and standard cost evaluation was held to be deductible as business expenditure because it was spent to improve and rationalise the assessee&#039;s administration. The expression &quot;for the purpose of business&quot; was treated as wide enough to cover measures connected with rationalisation and modernisation of business administration. On the facts, the consultant&#039;s fee was regarded as wholly and exclusively laid out for the business, and the contention that it created a capital asset or enduring benefit was rejected. The amount was therefore allowed as a deduction in computing income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>