<?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>1975 (11) TMI 35 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39341</link>
    <description>Reimbursement by a company of its auditors&#039; defence costs in disciplinary proceedings was not deductible as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court applied the statutory test that the payment must be laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business and must not be capital or personal expenditure. Because the proceedings concerned the auditors&#039; own conduct in certifying accounts, and did not affect the company&#039;s trading activity, assets, or reputation, the expenditure was treated as personal to the auditors rather than incidental to the company&#039;s business. Authorisation in the articles of association did not satisfy the tax deduction test.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:03:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=77887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (11) TMI 35 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39341</link>
      <description>Reimbursement by a company of its auditors&#039; defence costs in disciplinary proceedings was not deductible as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court applied the statutory test that the payment must be laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business and must not be capital or personal expenditure. Because the proceedings concerned the auditors&#039; own conduct in certifying accounts, and did not affect the company&#039;s trading activity, assets, or reputation, the expenditure was treated as personal to the auditors rather than incidental to the company&#039;s business. Authorisation in the articles of association did not satisfy the tax deduction test.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39341</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>