<?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>2000 (8) TMI 246 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62300</link>
    <description>A charge arising automatically on shortfall in maintaining statutory reserve ratios was treated as compensatory regulatory interest, not a penalty for infraction of law, so it was considered allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal distinguished this levy from a punitive disallowance because the rate-linked charge operated under the banking regulatory framework and was not converted into a penalty merely by the absence of a lender-creditor relationship. On the section 68 issue, the inability to identify every fixed-deposit holder did not, by itself, justify adding the deposits as income; absent proof that the deposits were undisclosed income of the bank, the addition was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100746" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 246 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62300</link>
      <description>A charge arising automatically on shortfall in maintaining statutory reserve ratios was treated as compensatory regulatory interest, not a penalty for infraction of law, so it was considered allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal distinguished this levy from a punitive disallowance because the rate-linked charge operated under the banking regulatory framework and was not converted into a penalty merely by the absence of a lender-creditor relationship. On the section 68 issue, the inability to identify every fixed-deposit holder did not, by itself, justify adding the deposits as income; absent proof that the deposits were undisclosed income of the bank, the addition was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62300</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>