<?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>1968 (1) TMI 8 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7211</link>
    <description>Professional tax paid for business premises was treated as deductible where the levy was linked to valuation of the premises used for business and not to profits or gains. Section 10(4) did not bar the deduction because it excludes only taxes levied on profits or gains, or assessed by reference to them, and the municipal charge had a sufficient nexus with the premises rather than business income. The phrase &quot;in respect of&quot; in section 10(2)(ix) was interpreted broadly enough to cover this type of municipal tax, even though it was not a direct tax on the premises themselves. The payment was therefore deductible and not hit by the statutory exclusion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46262" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (1) TMI 8 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7211</link>
      <description>Professional tax paid for business premises was treated as deductible where the levy was linked to valuation of the premises used for business and not to profits or gains. Section 10(4) did not bar the deduction because it excludes only taxes levied on profits or gains, or assessed by reference to them, and the municipal charge had a sufficient nexus with the premises rather than business income. The phrase &quot;in respect of&quot; in section 10(2)(ix) was interpreted broadly enough to cover this type of municipal tax, even though it was not a direct tax on the premises themselves. The payment was therefore deductible and not hit by the statutory exclusion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>