<?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>2010 (1) TMI 223 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76508</link>
    <description>Payments made to compound violations of a sanctioned building plan are penal in nature where the municipal law treats them as compounding an offence against the Act, rules, bye-laws or regulations. Re-labelling such a payment as a regularisation fee does not change its character. As a penalty, the amount is not an admissible deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because expenditure incurred to compound an offence cannot be allowed as a business deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 223 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76508</link>
      <description>Payments made to compound violations of a sanctioned building plan are penal in nature where the municipal law treats them as compounding an offence against the Act, rules, bye-laws or regulations. Re-labelling such a payment as a regularisation fee does not change its character. As a penalty, the amount is not an admissible deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because expenditure incurred to compound an offence cannot be allowed as a business deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>