<?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>1979 (7) TMI 18 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36171</link>
    <description>The court determined that the royalty payments made by the assessee to the foreign collaborator were revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. Additionally, the profit from the sale of imported spare parts was considered for relief under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Both issues were decided in favor of the assessee, entitling them to costs and counsel&#039;s fee of Rs. 500.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:26:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (7) TMI 18 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36171</link>
      <description>The court determined that the royalty payments made by the assessee to the foreign collaborator were revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. Additionally, the profit from the sale of imported spare parts was considered for relief under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Both issues were decided in favor of the assessee, entitling them to costs and counsel&#039;s fee of Rs. 500.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36171</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>