<?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>1971 (3) TMI 1 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8157</link>
    <description>Litigation expenses incurred to recover or protect a business asset are deductible if laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes, and surplus funds retained as fixed deposits do not lose their character as business assets merely because they represent reserves or past profits. On that basis, civil recovery expenses for the fixed deposit and related dues were allowable. Criminal prosecution expenses against a managing agent, however, were not deductible because such proceedings are directed primarily to punishment and were not shown to have been instituted for recovery or protection of the business asset; any pressure on the accused did not make the expenditure wholly and exclusively business-related.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47203" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (3) TMI 1 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8157</link>
      <description>Litigation expenses incurred to recover or protect a business asset are deductible if laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes, and surplus funds retained as fixed deposits do not lose their character as business assets merely because they represent reserves or past profits. On that basis, civil recovery expenses for the fixed deposit and related dues were allowable. Criminal prosecution expenses against a managing agent, however, were not deductible because such proceedings are directed primarily to punishment and were not shown to have been instituted for recovery or protection of the business asset; any pressure on the accused did not make the expenditure wholly and exclusively business-related.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>