<?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 (4) TMI 17 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7906</link>
    <description>Advances made to an associated firm were treated as loans in the course of the assessee-firm&#039;s money-lending business, not as capital contributions, because the partnership terms and surrounding conduct showed the amounts were recoverable debts carrying interest. Litigation expenditure and remuneration paid to Shri R. K. Saran were allowable deductions, as the litigation was undertaken to protect business interests, recover loan amounts, and preserve security. The sum of Rs. 10,614 was not taxable profit under the capital allowance provision, because the house was allotted on partition and such allotment was not a sale. The issues were resolved in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46956" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (4) TMI 17 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7906</link>
      <description>Advances made to an associated firm were treated as loans in the course of the assessee-firm&#039;s money-lending business, not as capital contributions, because the partnership terms and surrounding conduct showed the amounts were recoverable debts carrying interest. Litigation expenditure and remuneration paid to Shri R. K. Saran were allowable deductions, as the litigation was undertaken to protect business interests, recover loan amounts, and preserve security. The sum of Rs. 10,614 was not taxable profit under the capital allowance provision, because the house was allotted on partition and such allotment was not a sale. The issues were resolved in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>