<?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>1969 (2) TMI 37 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7581</link>
    <description>Payment made to obtain new business premises, where it was not shown to secure any enduring advantage or fixed-term lease, was treated as revenue expenditure. The amount was incurred to enable the business to continue after the earlier branch had to be vacated under rent control proceedings, so it was connected with the carrying on of business rather than the creation of a capital asset. It was therefore deductible in computing business income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 13:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46631" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (2) TMI 37 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7581</link>
      <description>Payment made to obtain new business premises, where it was not shown to secure any enduring advantage or fixed-term lease, was treated as revenue expenditure. The amount was incurred to enable the business to continue after the earlier branch had to be vacated under rent control proceedings, so it was connected with the carrying on of business rather than the creation of a capital asset. It was therefore deductible in computing business income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>