<?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 (9) TMI 41 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27816</link>
    <description>Interest forgone on advances to an allied agricultural company was treated as deductible where the assessee showed commercial expediency, a direct business nexus, and a need to preserve a dependable cane supply for its sugar operations. Extra cane price paid under a business arrangement with the allied company was also held allowable because its dominant purpose was to secure and protect the assessee&#039;s raw material source, despite incidental benefit to the recipient. Additional cane price payable under clause 34(1) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955, was regarded as an ascertained statutory liability, not a contingent claim, and was deductible in the relevant assessment years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:25:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (9) TMI 41 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27816</link>
      <description>Interest forgone on advances to an allied agricultural company was treated as deductible where the assessee showed commercial expediency, a direct business nexus, and a need to preserve a dependable cane supply for its sugar operations. Extra cane price paid under a business arrangement with the allied company was also held allowable because its dominant purpose was to secure and protect the assessee&#039;s raw material source, despite incidental benefit to the recipient. Additional cane price payable under clause 34(1) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955, was regarded as an ascertained statutory liability, not a contingent claim, and was deductible in the relevant assessment years.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>