<?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 24 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49534</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, a company in Bombay, in a case concerning the calculation of goodwill for excess profits tax under the Indian Income-tax Act. The Court held that goodwill should be included in the capital calculation, contrary to the Department and Tribunal&#039;s arguments. Emphasizing the broader interpretation of goodwill in business valuation, the Court criticized the Tribunal&#039;s narrow focus on leasehold value and directed the High Court to frame a question for the Tribunal to address the goodwill valuation issue correctly. The respondent was ordered to bear the appeal costs, with no specific order issued for the second appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88014" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (11) TMI 24 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49534</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, a company in Bombay, in a case concerning the calculation of goodwill for excess profits tax under the Indian Income-tax Act. The Court held that goodwill should be included in the capital calculation, contrary to the Department and Tribunal&#039;s arguments. Emphasizing the broader interpretation of goodwill in business valuation, the Court criticized the Tribunal&#039;s narrow focus on leasehold value and directed the High Court to frame a question for the Tribunal to address the goodwill valuation issue correctly. The respondent was ordered to bear the appeal costs, with no specific order issued for the second appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49534</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>