<?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 (10) TMI 109 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285689</link>
    <description>Amounts payable as interest on deferred purchase price under a lease deed and consent decree were treated as part of the consideration for acquisition of land, not as interest on borrowed capital. The liability arose from default in paying the purchase price and from the agreed instalment arrangement, rather than from borrowing for business purposes. The High Court held that the printing and publishing business was not so inseparably linked to the land acquisition that the expenditure could be regarded as wholly and exclusively laid out for business. The deduction was therefore disallowed under both the interest-on-borrowed-capital provision and the business expenditure provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2020 11:53:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (10) TMI 109 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285689</link>
      <description>Amounts payable as interest on deferred purchase price under a lease deed and consent decree were treated as part of the consideration for acquisition of land, not as interest on borrowed capital. The liability arose from default in paying the purchase price and from the agreed instalment arrangement, rather than from borrowing for business purposes. The High Court held that the printing and publishing business was not so inseparably linked to the land acquisition that the expenditure could be regarded as wholly and exclusively laid out for business. The deduction was therefore disallowed under both the interest-on-borrowed-capital provision and the business expenditure provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285689</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>