<?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 (4) TMI 11 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25956</link>
    <description>The court held that the entire royalty payment made by the assessee was revenue expenditure, not containing any element of capital nature. The sales tax amount was deemed as the assessee&#039;s income due to following the mercantile system of accounting. The court rejected the Tribunal&#039;s bifurcation of royalty expenditure and accepted the assessee&#039;s withdrawal of the extra shift allowance claim. The references were disposed of with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:41:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64954" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (4) TMI 11 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25956</link>
      <description>The court held that the entire royalty payment made by the assessee was revenue expenditure, not containing any element of capital nature. The sales tax amount was deemed as the assessee&#039;s income due to following the mercantile system of accounting. The court rejected the Tribunal&#039;s bifurcation of royalty expenditure and accepted the assessee&#039;s withdrawal of the extra shift allowance claim. The references were disposed of with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25956</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>