<?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 (3) TMI 66 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25589</link>
    <description>Expenditure incurred in connection with obtaining lease premises was treated as revenue expenditure because it did not bring into existence a capital asset or an advantage of enduring nature. The analysis followed the settled view that lease-related payments and lease arrangement costs are deductible where the material does not show acquisition of any capital asset or enduring benefit. The deduction was therefore supportable on the basis that the expenditure was incidental to securing the lease and remained in the revenue field.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 66 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25589</link>
      <description>Expenditure incurred in connection with obtaining lease premises was treated as revenue expenditure because it did not bring into existence a capital asset or an advantage of enduring nature. The analysis followed the settled view that lease-related payments and lease arrangement costs are deductible where the material does not show acquisition of any capital asset or enduring benefit. The deduction was therefore supportable on the basis that the expenditure was incidental to securing the lease and remained in the revenue field.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>