<?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 (11) TMI 19 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7791</link>
    <description>Wealth-tax paid on net wealth is not a permissible deduction in computing income under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The text also states that expenditure on development of roads in cane-growing rural areas created a capital asset, so it was capital in nature and not deductible as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) or as an outgoing under commercial principles in section 10(1). On that basis, both referenced questions were answered against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (11) TMI 19 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7791</link>
      <description>Wealth-tax paid on net wealth is not a permissible deduction in computing income under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The text also states that expenditure on development of roads in cane-growing rural areas created a capital asset, so it was capital in nature and not deductible as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) or as an outgoing under commercial principles in section 10(1). On that basis, both referenced questions were answered against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7791</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>