<?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>2006 (11) TMI 240 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62318</link>
    <description>Redemption fine paid in lieu of confiscation of gold under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was held to be connected with an infraction of law and not a compensatory business outlay. Because the gold was found in unauthorised possession and the option to pay fine arose only after contravention of the Act, the payment could not qualify as an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The disallowance was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:40:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 240 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62318</link>
      <description>Redemption fine paid in lieu of confiscation of gold under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was held to be connected with an infraction of law and not a compensatory business outlay. Because the gold was found in unauthorised possession and the option to pay fine arose only after contravention of the Act, the payment could not qualify as an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The disallowance was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>