<?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 (3) TMI 120 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280160</link>
    <description>Payments described as liquidated damages for extending a supply contract were held to be allowable business deductions because they were not penalties for breach, but commercial expenditure incurred to keep the contract alive and enable completion. The payment was directly connected with carrying on the business and was made on grounds of commercial expediency, so the sums were deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:00:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=568063" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (3) TMI 120 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280160</link>
      <description>Payments described as liquidated damages for extending a supply contract were held to be allowable business deductions because they were not penalties for breach, but commercial expenditure incurred to keep the contract alive and enable completion. The payment was directly connected with carrying on the business and was made on grounds of commercial expediency, so the sums were deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>