<?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 (7) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7228</link>
    <description>Amounts collected from customers in connection with business sales and placed in a separate account remained taxable business income where the assessee had complete discretion over their use and no trust, binding obligation, or enforceable duty to apply them to charity. The expenditure on converting latrines and replacing roofs in labourers&#039; quarters was not deductible as repairs under section 10(2)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because it materially improved and altered the property rather than merely restoring it. The reference was answered against the assessee on both issues, treating the receipt as income and the outlay as capital in nature.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (7) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7228</link>
      <description>Amounts collected from customers in connection with business sales and placed in a separate account remained taxable business income where the assessee had complete discretion over their use and no trust, binding obligation, or enforceable duty to apply them to charity. The expenditure on converting latrines and replacing roofs in labourers&#039; quarters was not deductible as repairs under section 10(2)(ii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because it materially improved and altered the property rather than merely restoring it. The reference was answered against the assessee on both issues, treating the receipt as income and the outlay as capital in nature.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7228</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>