<?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 24 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8329</link>
    <description>Payment made to secure recognition of textbooks for sale in a new territory created an enduring business advantage and was therefore capital expenditure, not a revenue deduction. The fact that the payment was made by instalments did not change its character. The assessee&#039;s printing and publishing activity also did not qualify as a newly established industrial undertaking, because the later use of its own printing press was treated as a continuation and altered form of an existing business rather than a new undertaking. Exemption under section 15C was therefore unavailable. Both substantive tax questions were answered against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47373" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (3) TMI 24 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8329</link>
      <description>Payment made to secure recognition of textbooks for sale in a new territory created an enduring business advantage and was therefore capital expenditure, not a revenue deduction. The fact that the payment was made by instalments did not change its character. The assessee&#039;s printing and publishing activity also did not qualify as a newly established industrial undertaking, because the later use of its own printing press was treated as a continuation and altered form of an existing business rather than a new undertaking. Exemption under section 15C was therefore unavailable. Both substantive tax questions were answered against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8329</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>