<?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>1991 (6) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21570</link>
    <description>Contractual drilling and exploration expenditure incurred in the field during crude-oil operations was treated as business expenditure and the disallowance under the travel and entertainment limits was deleted. Income from transporting crude oil was regarded as attributable to the business of production of mineral oil and eligible for relief under the profit-linked provision. Oil wells were treated as plant because they function as business apparatus in crude-oil extraction, so development rebate was allowable on drilling expenditure even though the outlay had also been allowed on revenue account. The discussion applies the governing agreement, prior precedent, and the ordinary meaning of plant to sustain the claimed tax treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:20:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (6) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21570</link>
      <description>Contractual drilling and exploration expenditure incurred in the field during crude-oil operations was treated as business expenditure and the disallowance under the travel and entertainment limits was deleted. Income from transporting crude oil was regarded as attributable to the business of production of mineral oil and eligible for relief under the profit-linked provision. Oil wells were treated as plant because they function as business apparatus in crude-oil extraction, so development rebate was allowable on drilling expenditure even though the outlay had also been allowed on revenue account. The discussion applies the governing agreement, prior precedent, and the ordinary meaning of plant to sustain the claimed tax treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>