<?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>1977 (11) TMI 54 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38343</link>
    <description>A partner&#039;s share of firm profits is business income in his hands, and expenses incurred on grounds of commercial expediency to earn that income are deductible. The discussion states that motor car, entertainment, studio, books and related expenses, together with depreciation on the motor car, were connected with the assessee&#039;s architectural practice and were agreed to be borne by the partners. Their absence from the firm&#039;s accounts did not justify disallowance. The Tribunal&#039;s rejection of the deductions on the footing that they were not incurred for earning the partner&#039;s share of profits was therefore incorrect, and the claim was treated as allowable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:48:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=76889" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (11) TMI 54 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38343</link>
      <description>A partner&#039;s share of firm profits is business income in his hands, and expenses incurred on grounds of commercial expediency to earn that income are deductible. The discussion states that motor car, entertainment, studio, books and related expenses, together with depreciation on the motor car, were connected with the assessee&#039;s architectural practice and were agreed to be borne by the partners. Their absence from the firm&#039;s accounts did not justify disallowance. The Tribunal&#039;s rejection of the deductions on the footing that they were not incurred for earning the partner&#039;s share of profits was therefore incorrect, and the claim was treated as allowable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38343</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>