<?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 (3) TMI 2 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49573</link>
    <description>Whether compensation of Rs. 57,435 for compulsory vacation of business premises was capital or revenue turned on its characterisation as loss of profits due to interruption of trade. The court held that the payment was assessed and claimed as disturbance/loss of profits, there was no finding of injury to tangible capital assets nor any proved loss of goodwill, and therefore the sum constituted a revenue (trading) receipt rather than a capital receipt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2014 11:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (3) TMI 2 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49573</link>
      <description>Whether compensation of Rs. 57,435 for compulsory vacation of business premises was capital or revenue turned on its characterisation as loss of profits due to interruption of trade. The court held that the payment was assessed and claimed as disturbance/loss of profits, there was no finding of injury to tangible capital assets nor any proved loss of goodwill, and therefore the sum constituted a revenue (trading) receipt rather than a capital receipt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>