<?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>1967 (12) TMI 8 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7172</link>
    <description>Expenditure incurred on a film exhibition&#039;s silver jubilee celebration was treated as deductible business outlay because it was incurred in the course of the assessee&#039;s film exhibition business and connected with sustaining collections and business publicity. The court applied the test that revenue scrutiny under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is confined to the reality of the expenditure and whether it was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The reasonableness and commercial expediency of the spending were primarily for the assessee to judge. The expenditure was therefore held admissible and the disallowance was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (12) TMI 8 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7172</link>
      <description>Expenditure incurred on a film exhibition&#039;s silver jubilee celebration was treated as deductible business outlay because it was incurred in the course of the assessee&#039;s film exhibition business and connected with sustaining collections and business publicity. The court applied the test that revenue scrutiny under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is confined to the reality of the expenditure and whether it was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The reasonableness and commercial expediency of the spending were primarily for the assessee to judge. The expenditure was therefore held admissible and the disallowance was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7172</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>