<?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>1974 (6) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39757</link>
    <description>An advance made to an under-broker in the ordinary course of a brokerage business was treated as a trading loss when it became irrecoverable on the under-broker&#039;s death. The amount was not claimed as brokerage expenditure under the cash system, but as a business loss incidental to the assessee&#039;s commercial operations. The finding that the advance was made from commercial expediency and arose in the course of business made the write-off deductible under section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:23:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78303" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (6) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39757</link>
      <description>An advance made to an under-broker in the ordinary course of a brokerage business was treated as a trading loss when it became irrecoverable on the under-broker&#039;s death. The amount was not claimed as brokerage expenditure under the cash system, but as a business loss incidental to the assessee&#039;s commercial operations. The finding that the advance was made from commercial expediency and arose in the course of business made the write-off deductible under section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>