<?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 (12) TMI 3 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8392</link>
    <description>Legal and professional expenses incurred in contesting tax matters and settling assessments were deductible as business expenditure where they were reasonably and honestly incurred to protect or promote the business and were laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes; the deduction was therefore allowed. On the transfer of trucks taken over from a Hindu undivided family, the surplus on sale was taxable where the business continued as the same concern after partition with the same assets and liabilities, because the original cost for section 10(2)(vii) did not become nil merely due to exhaustion of the predecessor&#039;s written-down value; the excess realised was treated as deemed profit and taxed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (12) TMI 3 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8392</link>
      <description>Legal and professional expenses incurred in contesting tax matters and settling assessments were deductible as business expenditure where they were reasonably and honestly incurred to protect or promote the business and were laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes; the deduction was therefore allowed. On the transfer of trucks taken over from a Hindu undivided family, the surplus on sale was taxable where the business continued as the same concern after partition with the same assets and liabilities, because the original cost for section 10(2)(vii) did not become nil merely due to exhaustion of the predecessor&#039;s written-down value; the excess realised was treated as deemed profit and taxed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Dec 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>