<?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 (4) TMI 82 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36580</link>
    <description>A payment made by a shareholder-director as guarantor for a company&#039;s bank debt is not deductible as business expenditure or business loss unless there is a real nexus with an actual business carried on by the assessee. The Bombay High Court analysis states that, on the facts, the assessee&#039;s shareholding and office-holding did not amount to a single organised business of managing companies, and the loan repayment was not laid out wholly and exclusively for any such business. The claim also failed as income from other sources because no connection was shown between the payment and the earning of dividends or director&#039;s fees, so the deduction was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:28:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=75126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (4) TMI 82 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36580</link>
      <description>A payment made by a shareholder-director as guarantor for a company&#039;s bank debt is not deductible as business expenditure or business loss unless there is a real nexus with an actual business carried on by the assessee. The Bombay High Court analysis states that, on the facts, the assessee&#039;s shareholding and office-holding did not amount to a single organised business of managing companies, and the loan repayment was not laid out wholly and exclusively for any such business. The claim also failed as income from other sources because no connection was shown between the payment and the earning of dividends or director&#039;s fees, so the deduction was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36580</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>