<?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>1986 (8) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24688</link>
    <description>The High Court held that a Rs. 20 lakhs deposit was a capital investment, not a business loss, as it was made to secure the right to operate mills, not in the course of ordinary business. Thus, the loss was on a capital account and not deductible. However, Rs. 4,31,352 for insurance, rates, and taxes was allowed as business expenditure by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court. The outcome was negative for the assessee on the first issue and affirmative on the second issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:49:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63686" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (8) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24688</link>
      <description>The High Court held that a Rs. 20 lakhs deposit was a capital investment, not a business loss, as it was made to secure the right to operate mills, not in the course of ordinary business. Thus, the loss was on a capital account and not deductible. However, Rs. 4,31,352 for insurance, rates, and taxes was allowed as business expenditure by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court. The outcome was negative for the assessee on the first issue and affirmative on the second issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24688</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>