<?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>1960 (11) TMI 16 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49526</link>
    <description>A loss arising from repayment of a joint business borrowing was held deductible where the borrowing formed part of a recognised commercial financing practice and was integral to the assessee&#039;s business. The Court treated the liability as business-connected because the joint and several arrangement enabled funds to be obtained at a lower interest cost, and the loss arose directly from that transaction when the co-borrower became insolvent. The loss was not regarded as remote or capital in nature, and the presence of custom and mutuality distinguished the earlier authorities. The deduction was therefore allowable as a business loss under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (11) TMI 16 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49526</link>
      <description>A loss arising from repayment of a joint business borrowing was held deductible where the borrowing formed part of a recognised commercial financing practice and was integral to the assessee&#039;s business. The Court treated the liability as business-connected because the joint and several arrangement enabled funds to be obtained at a lower interest cost, and the loss arose directly from that transaction when the co-borrower became insolvent. The loss was not regarded as remote or capital in nature, and the presence of custom and mutuality distinguished the earlier authorities. The deduction was therefore allowable as a business loss under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49526</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>