<?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>1963 (3) TMI 76 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276853</link>
    <description>Commission paid to procure debenture loan capital was analysed by reference to the character of the expenditure and the distinction between capital outlay and revenue expense. One view treated the commission as part of the cost of obtaining loan capital and therefore capital in nature; another treated it as a payment made in the course of trading operations and thus revenue. The discussion on whether the sum was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes likewise turned on commercial expediency and the financing needs of the business. The judges were divided, so no final unanimous conclusion was reached and the matter was to be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a further Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:10:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (3) TMI 76 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276853</link>
      <description>Commission paid to procure debenture loan capital was analysed by reference to the character of the expenditure and the distinction between capital outlay and revenue expense. One view treated the commission as part of the cost of obtaining loan capital and therefore capital in nature; another treated it as a payment made in the course of trading operations and thus revenue. The discussion on whether the sum was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes likewise turned on commercial expediency and the financing needs of the business. The judges were divided, so no final unanimous conclusion was reached and the matter was to be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a further Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>