<?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>1973 (4) TMI 23 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9136</link>
    <description>Expenditure incurred on grounds of commercial expediency and for the purpose of carrying on business is deductible where it is genuine and supported by the accounts. Payments made to financiers in lieu of interest were held allowable because they were connected with business borrowing, and the absence of a written agreement did not by itself negate the arrangement. Commission paid to an employee for managing sales was also deductible because it operated as a business incentive and was evidenced in the books. The revenue could not disallow either payment merely on the view that a smaller or more prudent amount would have sufficed, since the test remains the businessman&#039;s perspective, not the tax authority&#039;s.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (4) TMI 23 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9136</link>
      <description>Expenditure incurred on grounds of commercial expediency and for the purpose of carrying on business is deductible where it is genuine and supported by the accounts. Payments made to financiers in lieu of interest were held allowable because they were connected with business borrowing, and the absence of a written agreement did not by itself negate the arrangement. Commission paid to an employee for managing sales was also deductible because it operated as a business incentive and was evidenced in the books. The revenue could not disallow either payment merely on the view that a smaller or more prudent amount would have sufficed, since the test remains the businessman&#039;s perspective, not the tax authority&#039;s.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9136</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>