https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28623 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the expenditure on retrenchment compensation constituted allowable business expenditure for the assessment year 1972-73. The Court clarified that discontinuing business at one location while continuing at another did not amount to closure of business, emphasizing that maintaining separate accounts for different locations did not signify distinct businesses. The judgment provides insights into the interpretation of business closure and its implications on financial liabilities, ultimately allowing the deduction for retrenchment compensation in this case. en-us Fri, 15 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:04:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28623 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the expenditure on retrenchment compensation constituted allowable business expenditure for the assessment year 1972-73. The Court clarified that discontinuing business at one location while continuing at another did not amount to closure of business, emphasizing that maintaining separate accounts for different locations did not signify distinct businesses. The judgment provides insights into the interpretation of business closure and its implications on financial liabilities, ultimately allowing the deduction for retrenchment compensation in this case. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 15 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28623