<?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>1985 (9) TMI 33 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26390</link>
    <description>Lease rent paid after statutory vesting was held not to be an allowable deduction under the Agricultural Income-tax Act because, in substance, it represented consideration for acquiring the landowner&#039;s right, title and interest and was capital in nature. Reading the Kerala Land Reforms Act together, the Court stated that after 1 April 1970 no legal rent was payable to the erstwhile landowner; the statutory scheme redirected such amounts toward purchase price and compensation. The Court also rejected the claim that the payment could be deducted as bona fide expenditure on commercial expediency, since a capital outlay does not become revenue expenditure merely because it was made for business convenience.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:30:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (9) TMI 33 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26390</link>
      <description>Lease rent paid after statutory vesting was held not to be an allowable deduction under the Agricultural Income-tax Act because, in substance, it represented consideration for acquiring the landowner&#039;s right, title and interest and was capital in nature. Reading the Kerala Land Reforms Act together, the Court stated that after 1 April 1970 no legal rent was payable to the erstwhile landowner; the statutory scheme redirected such amounts toward purchase price and compensation. The Court also rejected the claim that the payment could be deducted as bona fide expenditure on commercial expediency, since a capital outlay does not become revenue expenditure merely because it was made for business convenience.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>