<?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 (10) TMI 89 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26691</link>
    <description>Enhanced rupee liability arising from devaluation, where a foreign currency loan had been taken to create a capital asset, was held includible in capital computation under rule 1(v) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The court treated the increase as a real liability because the assessee had to pay more rupees to discharge the same dollar obligation. It rejected the contention that a fresh capital asset had to be created out of the enhanced liability, and also rejected any requirement that the asset be completed only after devaluation. The earlier use of the borrowing for a qualifying capital asset was sufficient.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:38:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65689" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (10) TMI 89 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26691</link>
      <description>Enhanced rupee liability arising from devaluation, where a foreign currency loan had been taken to create a capital asset, was held includible in capital computation under rule 1(v) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The court treated the increase as a real liability because the assessee had to pay more rupees to discharge the same dollar obligation. It rejected the contention that a fresh capital asset had to be created out of the enhanced liability, and also rejected any requirement that the asset be completed only after devaluation. The earlier use of the borrowing for a qualifying capital asset was sufficient.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>