<?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>1964 (10) TMI 12 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49333</link>
    <description>Interest paid on deferred consideration for the purchase of business assets was not interest on capital borrowed, because a vendor&#039;s unpaid purchase price does not by itself create a borrowing within section 10(2)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. That deduction was therefore unavailable. The same interest was, however, allowable as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv), since it was incurred after business commencement, was wholly and exclusively connected with the business, and was not capital or personal in nature. The Court thus treated the payment as part of the business arrangement rather than as borrowing cost, and the assessee succeeded on the residuary deduction issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2014 19:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (10) TMI 12 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49333</link>
      <description>Interest paid on deferred consideration for the purchase of business assets was not interest on capital borrowed, because a vendor&#039;s unpaid purchase price does not by itself create a borrowing within section 10(2)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. That deduction was therefore unavailable. The same interest was, however, allowable as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv), since it was incurred after business commencement, was wholly and exclusively connected with the business, and was not capital or personal in nature. The Court thus treated the payment as part of the business arrangement rather than as borrowing cost, and the assessee succeeded on the residuary deduction issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49333</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>