<?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 25 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7322</link>
    <description>A contractual payment payable to the Travancore Government under a business transfer arrangement was analysed under the doctrines of diversion of income by overriding title and business deduction. The majority treated the Government&#039;s entitlement as a superior contractual title operating before the receipts became the assessee&#039;s income, so the amount was not taxable as the assessee&#039;s income. The Court also accepted that the payment was an outgoing incurred in the course of carrying on the business and satisfied the requirement of expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business under section 10(2)(xv), making it deductible. A dissent viewed the payment as mere application of income and denied both treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46373" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (12) TMI 25 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7322</link>
      <description>A contractual payment payable to the Travancore Government under a business transfer arrangement was analysed under the doctrines of diversion of income by overriding title and business deduction. The majority treated the Government&#039;s entitlement as a superior contractual title operating before the receipts became the assessee&#039;s income, so the amount was not taxable as the assessee&#039;s income. The Court also accepted that the payment was an outgoing incurred in the course of carrying on the business and satisfied the requirement of expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business under section 10(2)(xv), making it deductible. A dissent viewed the payment as mere application of income and denied both treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>