<?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>1989 (7) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23246</link>
    <description>Under the mercantile system, an accrued statutory liability may be deducted even without a separate accounting entry, and retrospective validation of a levy can sustain deduction of interest on arrears of cane cess as a compensatory business expense. Legal expenses incurred to challenge the Sugar Control Order were also treated as deductible business expenditure because they were aimed at protecting the business and improving selling price, satisfying commercial expediency. On directors&#039; accommodation, the ceiling for perquisites was not governed by rule 3 alone for the purposes of section 40(c)(iii), and that view was taken against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:27:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62245" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (7) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23246</link>
      <description>Under the mercantile system, an accrued statutory liability may be deducted even without a separate accounting entry, and retrospective validation of a levy can sustain deduction of interest on arrears of cane cess as a compensatory business expense. Legal expenses incurred to challenge the Sugar Control Order were also treated as deductible business expenditure because they were aimed at protecting the business and improving selling price, satisfying commercial expediency. On directors&#039; accommodation, the ceiling for perquisites was not governed by rule 3 alone for the purposes of section 40(c)(iii), and that view was taken against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23246</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>