<?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>2001 (6) TMI 824 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283385</link>
    <description>Under the mercantile system, a contractual lease rental liability that had legally accrued during the relevant years was deductible in computing business income, even though a lower amount was entered in the books; book entries were relevant but not conclusive, and the actual contractual liability governed. Expenditure on stamp duty and registration fee for increasing authorised share capital was capital in nature, since it related to expansion of the capital base and did not become revenue merely because it supported business operations. It also did not fall within section 35D, as the statutory conditions for that allowance were not satisfied. The assessee obtained relief on the lease rental claim but not on the share capital expenditure claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2019 16:36:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588127" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 824 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283385</link>
      <description>Under the mercantile system, a contractual lease rental liability that had legally accrued during the relevant years was deductible in computing business income, even though a lower amount was entered in the books; book entries were relevant but not conclusive, and the actual contractual liability governed. Expenditure on stamp duty and registration fee for increasing authorised share capital was capital in nature, since it related to expansion of the capital base and did not become revenue merely because it supported business operations. It also did not fall within section 35D, as the statutory conditions for that allowance were not satisfied. The assessee obtained relief on the lease rental claim but not on the share capital expenditure claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283385</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>