<?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 (9) TMI 41 - ORISSA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39343</link>
    <description>Expenditure incurred for permanent improvement of a cinema hall, even by a lessee, was treated as capital in nature because it enhanced the asset itself and had an enduring character. The amount was therefore not allowable as a deduction in computing business income. The claim for depreciation was outside the referred question and was not examined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:08:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=77889" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (9) TMI 41 - ORISSA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39343</link>
      <description>Expenditure incurred for permanent improvement of a cinema hall, even by a lessee, was treated as capital in nature because it enhanced the asset itself and had an enduring character. The amount was therefore not allowable as a deduction in computing business income. The claim for depreciation was outside the referred question and was not examined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39343</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>