<?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>1981 (4) TMI 69 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35770</link>
    <description>Brokerage or commission paid to secure premises on lease for business use was treated as revenue expenditure where the lease was for a short and definite period and did not create an enduring capital advantage. The court held that such outlay formed part of the cost of obtaining business premises, including factory accommodation and residence for the sales manager, and was therefore not capital in nature. The amount was allowed as a deduction in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:39:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74316" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (4) TMI 69 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35770</link>
      <description>Brokerage or commission paid to secure premises on lease for business use was treated as revenue expenditure where the lease was for a short and definite period and did not create an enduring capital advantage. The court held that such outlay formed part of the cost of obtaining business premises, including factory accommodation and residence for the sales manager, and was therefore not capital in nature. The amount was allowed as a deduction in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>