<?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>1964 (11) TMI 116 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274746</link>
    <description>Wealth-tax paid on assets held exclusively for a company&#039;s business was treated as deductible in computing business income under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The expression &quot;for the purpose of business&quot; was construed broadly to cover outgoings that are necessary, incidental, or closely connected with carrying on the business. Because the assets formed part of the business apparatus itself, the tax on their ownership was regarded as a business outgoing. Authorities refusing deduction were distinguished as involving liabilities incurred in another capacity or for another person, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2018 17:01:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (11) TMI 116 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274746</link>
      <description>Wealth-tax paid on assets held exclusively for a company&#039;s business was treated as deductible in computing business income under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The expression &quot;for the purpose of business&quot; was construed broadly to cover outgoings that are necessary, incidental, or closely connected with carrying on the business. Because the assets formed part of the business apparatus itself, the tax on their ownership was regarded as a business outgoing. Authorities refusing deduction were distinguished as involving liabilities incurred in another capacity or for another person, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>