<?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>1986 (3) TMI 157 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70456</link>
    <description>Section 57(iii) allows deduction only for expenditure, other than capital outlay, laid out wholly and exclusively for earning the income, and the test requires a direct nexus with the receipt. Applied to lottery winnings treated as income from other sources, the cost of the lottery ticket was deductible because it was directly connected with acquiring the winning ticket. By contrast, court and encashment expenses incurred after the draw were only for collecting the prize and did not satisfy the statutory test, so they were not allowable. The revision under section 263 was justified to the extent it corrected the wrong allowance of post-draw expenses.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:50:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108801" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (3) TMI 157 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70456</link>
      <description>Section 57(iii) allows deduction only for expenditure, other than capital outlay, laid out wholly and exclusively for earning the income, and the test requires a direct nexus with the receipt. Applied to lottery winnings treated as income from other sources, the cost of the lottery ticket was deductible because it was directly connected with acquiring the winning ticket. By contrast, court and encashment expenses incurred after the draw were only for collecting the prize and did not satisfy the statutory test, so they were not allowable. The revision under section 263 was justified to the extent it corrected the wrong allowance of post-draw expenses.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70456</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>