<?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 (4) TMI 7 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7310</link>
    <description>Legal expenses incurred to obtain fresh bus route permits were treated as capital expenditure because each permit was regarded as a separate asset needed before business could be carried on in relation to that route. The expense was not laid out for the purpose of an existing business, but at the stage of acquiring the basis for commencing that segment of the transport business. Accordingly, the deduction was not admissible under the revenue-expenditure provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (4) TMI 7 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7310</link>
      <description>Legal expenses incurred to obtain fresh bus route permits were treated as capital expenditure because each permit was regarded as a separate asset needed before business could be carried on in relation to that route. The expense was not laid out for the purpose of an existing business, but at the stage of acquiring the basis for commencing that segment of the transport business. Accordingly, the deduction was not admissible under the revenue-expenditure provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>