<?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>1934 (5) TMI 19 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291548</link>
    <description>An amount paid by an assessee because an ex-partner could not bear his share of a partnership loss was held not to qualify as a deductible bad debt or as a business loss set off against other income under section 24. The loss had already been reflected in the partnership accounts up to closure of the cotton business, and no further loss of the assessee beyond what had been allowed in assessment was shown. After closure, the liability was not a debt owed to the assessee&#039;s money-lending business, since no loan had been advanced to the ex-partner. The transaction was therefore treated, at most, as a loss connected with the cotton business, with the result that the claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 1934 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=627837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1934 (5) TMI 19 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291548</link>
      <description>An amount paid by an assessee because an ex-partner could not bear his share of a partnership loss was held not to qualify as a deductible bad debt or as a business loss set off against other income under section 24. The loss had already been reflected in the partnership accounts up to closure of the cotton business, and no further loss of the assessee beyond what had been allowed in assessment was shown. After closure, the liability was not a debt owed to the assessee&#039;s money-lending business, since no loan had been advanced to the ex-partner. The transaction was therefore treated, at most, as a loss connected with the cotton business, with the result that the claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 1934 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>