<?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>1983 (9) TMI 115 - ITAT BOMBAY-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58237</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the allowance of expenditure of Rs. 45,776 for life insurance premiums by an assessee-firm under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It determined that the expenditure was for the business&#039;s benefit, ensuring partner retention for improved services and profits. The Tribunal distinguished the firm from its partners, rejecting claims of personal nature. The expenditure was deemed revenue, not capital, and not subject to disallowance under Section 40(b). The Vice President concurred, emphasizing the strategic nature of the expenditure for business continuity. The department&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:59:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96695" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (9) TMI 115 - ITAT BOMBAY-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58237</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the allowance of expenditure of Rs. 45,776 for life insurance premiums by an assessee-firm under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It determined that the expenditure was for the business&#039;s benefit, ensuring partner retention for improved services and profits. The Tribunal distinguished the firm from its partners, rejecting claims of personal nature. The expenditure was deemed revenue, not capital, and not subject to disallowance under Section 40(b). The Vice President concurred, emphasizing the strategic nature of the expenditure for business continuity. The department&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58237</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>