<?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 (9) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8944</link>
    <description>Loss from the sale of animals used in the assessee&#039;s business was deductible where the animals were not stock-in-trade, the business had not been closed, and only one line of manufacture had been discontinued. The court gave the words &quot;have died or become permanently useless&quot; their plain and ordinary meaning and rejected ejusdem generis, holding that the statutory language did not justify confining the general words by grouped particulars. On the undisputed facts, the animals had become permanently useless for business purposes, so the loss was allowable under section 10(2)(viii) and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (9) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8944</link>
      <description>Loss from the sale of animals used in the assessee&#039;s business was deductible where the animals were not stock-in-trade, the business had not been closed, and only one line of manufacture had been discontinued. The court gave the words &quot;have died or become permanently useless&quot; their plain and ordinary meaning and rejected ejusdem generis, holding that the statutory language did not justify confining the general words by grouped particulars. On the undisputed facts, the animals had become permanently useless for business purposes, so the loss was allowable under section 10(2)(viii) and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8944</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>