<?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>1980 (3) TMI 2 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27992</link>
    <description>The court determined that the annual fee paid under clause 9 of the collaboration agreement was a revenue expenditure eligible for deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The payment was considered to be for services essential for the normal operation of the business, rather than capital expenditure. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction of the fee and granting the costs of the reference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:41:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66990" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (3) TMI 2 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27992</link>
      <description>The court determined that the annual fee paid under clause 9 of the collaboration agreement was a revenue expenditure eligible for deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The payment was considered to be for services essential for the normal operation of the business, rather than capital expenditure. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction of the fee and granting the costs of the reference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>