<?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>1951 (9) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200092</link>
    <description>Expenditure incurred to acquire another partner&#039;s interest in a managing agency firm was treated as capital expenditure because it secured the assessee&#039;s exclusive benefit in a profit-yielding asset and gave an enduring advantage. The payment was not a fresh capital contribution to augment partnership profits, but consideration for obtaining a capital asset capable of generating income. It was therefore not deductible as revenue expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:07:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=513816" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (9) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200092</link>
      <description>Expenditure incurred to acquire another partner&#039;s interest in a managing agency firm was treated as capital expenditure because it secured the assessee&#039;s exclusive benefit in a profit-yielding asset and gave an enduring advantage. The payment was not a fresh capital contribution to augment partnership profits, but consideration for obtaining a capital asset capable of generating income. It was therefore not deductible as revenue expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>