<?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 (2) TMI 22 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36385</link>
    <description>Ownership for house-property taxation was treated as passing on execution and registration of the sale deed, so the bona fide annual value remained includible in income even though the vendor stayed in occupation rent-free as a licensee. A payment made after cancellation of earlier arrangements and in connection with securing exclusive rights to acquire land was characterised as capital in nature, not recurring revenue expenditure, because it secured an enduring business advantage and retired a competing interest. The note also records a dissent that viewed the payment as incurred in the ordinary course of the colonisation business and therefore deductible as revenue expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:52:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74931" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (2) TMI 22 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36385</link>
      <description>Ownership for house-property taxation was treated as passing on execution and registration of the sale deed, so the bona fide annual value remained includible in income even though the vendor stayed in occupation rent-free as a licensee. A payment made after cancellation of earlier arrangements and in connection with securing exclusive rights to acquire land was characterised as capital in nature, not recurring revenue expenditure, because it secured an enduring business advantage and retired a competing interest. The note also records a dissent that viewed the payment as incurred in the ordinary course of the colonisation business and therefore deductible as revenue expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36385</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>