<?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>1987 (1) TMI 40 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25562</link>
    <description>The High Court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision that legal and other expenses incurred for obtaining leases of office premises in New Delhi and Calcutta were not allowable in computing total income. The court held that the expenditure resulted in an enduring benefit and was capital in nature, aligning with precedents establishing that such expenses are not deductible as business expenditure. The decision favored the Revenue, with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:00:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (1) TMI 40 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25562</link>
      <description>The High Court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision that legal and other expenses incurred for obtaining leases of office premises in New Delhi and Calcutta were not allowable in computing total income. The court held that the expenditure resulted in an enduring benefit and was capital in nature, aligning with precedents establishing that such expenses are not deductible as business expenditure. The decision favored the Revenue, with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>