<?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>1970 (4) TMI 54 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8107</link>
    <description>Exchange loss on remittance of accumulated Pakistan profits was held not deductible because it did not arise from trading operations or any transaction incidental to carrying on business, but only from exchange fluctuation after devaluation. Legal charges incurred in connection with business profits tax appeals were allowable as revenue expenditure, as litigation undertaken to protect business interests may qualify for deduction if statutory conditions are met. Interest paid on borrowed funds invested in shares was also allowable, since the existence of income from the relevant source supported the deduction and the claim could not be denied merely because a particular investment did not itself produce a return.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47154" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (4) TMI 54 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8107</link>
      <description>Exchange loss on remittance of accumulated Pakistan profits was held not deductible because it did not arise from trading operations or any transaction incidental to carrying on business, but only from exchange fluctuation after devaluation. Legal charges incurred in connection with business profits tax appeals were allowable as revenue expenditure, as litigation undertaken to protect business interests may qualify for deduction if statutory conditions are met. Interest paid on borrowed funds invested in shares was also allowable, since the existence of income from the relevant source supported the deduction and the claim could not be denied merely because a particular investment did not itself produce a return.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>