<?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>1990 (1) TMI 42 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23570</link>
    <description>Payments made under a fresh partnership deed on reconstitution, including amounts paid to an outgoing partner and three minors, were examined for their character as revenue deduction or capital disbursement, with the added issue of whether Delhi Rent Control Act limits affected their treatment. The High Court did not decide the merits; instead, it held that the controversy turned on construction of the partnership instruments and the rent-control implications, and directed the Tribunal to state a case and refer the question whether the amounts paid were allowable as a revenue deduction. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:48:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62568" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (1) TMI 42 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23570</link>
      <description>Payments made under a fresh partnership deed on reconstitution, including amounts paid to an outgoing partner and three minors, were examined for their character as revenue deduction or capital disbursement, with the added issue of whether Delhi Rent Control Act limits affected their treatment. The High Court did not decide the merits; instead, it held that the controversy turned on construction of the partnership instruments and the rent-control implications, and directed the Tribunal to state a case and refer the question whether the amounts paid were allowable as a revenue deduction. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>