<?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>1993 (3) TMI 21 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20394</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the entertainment expenditure for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, following established precedents. However, the court sided with the Revenue regarding the capital expenditure of Rs. 1,15,067 for the acquisition of export rights, considering it as a capital asset providing enduring benefits. Thus, the expenditure was deemed as capital expenditure, contrary to the assessee&#039;s argument for revenue expenditure aimed at increasing business profitability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:39:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (3) TMI 21 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20394</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the entertainment expenditure for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, following established precedents. However, the court sided with the Revenue regarding the capital expenditure of Rs. 1,15,067 for the acquisition of export rights, considering it as a capital asset providing enduring benefits. Thus, the expenditure was deemed as capital expenditure, contrary to the assessee&#039;s argument for revenue expenditure aimed at increasing business profitability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>