<?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>1983 (10) TMI 27 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27719</link>
    <description>Whether tea, coffee and fertiliser ventures formed one business turned on interconnection, interlacing, interdependence and unity of control, not on common management or common accounting alone. The Court noted that shared administration, common funds and a common head office were relevant, but insufficient by themselves to establish a single integrated business. On the facts, fertiliser manufacture had a distinct commercial character and no real nexus with the tea and coffee operations, while the coffee activity also remained separately identifiable. As a result, the ventures were treated as separate businesses for deduction purposes, and full set-off of managing agency commission, sitting fees and head office expenses was not available across all activities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:55:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (10) TMI 27 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27719</link>
      <description>Whether tea, coffee and fertiliser ventures formed one business turned on interconnection, interlacing, interdependence and unity of control, not on common management or common accounting alone. The Court noted that shared administration, common funds and a common head office were relevant, but insufficient by themselves to establish a single integrated business. On the facts, fertiliser manufacture had a distinct commercial character and no real nexus with the tea and coffee operations, while the coffee activity also remained separately identifiable. As a result, the ventures were treated as separate businesses for deduction purposes, and full set-off of managing agency commission, sitting fees and head office expenses was not available across all activities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27719</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>