<?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 (7) TMI 59 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35805</link>
    <description>Expenditure on retaining staff after transfer of an undertaking was treated as connected with the transfer and allowable as transfer-related expenditure, because it was incurred to complete the transfer process, pursue valuation and compensation matters, and protect the assessee&#039;s interest in the acquisition price. Retrenchment compensation paid in anticipation of transfer was held deductible as a business outgoing, since the workmen were not absorbed by the transferee and the proviso to section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act did not apply. Amounts received under the proviso to section 7A(4) of the Indian Electricity Act were treated as part of the sale price, not a capital receipt, and no separate reference was required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:29:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (7) TMI 59 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35805</link>
      <description>Expenditure on retaining staff after transfer of an undertaking was treated as connected with the transfer and allowable as transfer-related expenditure, because it was incurred to complete the transfer process, pursue valuation and compensation matters, and protect the assessee&#039;s interest in the acquisition price. Retrenchment compensation paid in anticipation of transfer was held deductible as a business outgoing, since the workmen were not absorbed by the transferee and the proviso to section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act did not apply. Amounts received under the proviso to section 7A(4) of the Indian Electricity Act were treated as part of the sale price, not a capital receipt, and no separate reference was required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>