<?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>2008 (5) TMI 449 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120512</link>
    <description>Commission paid to agents for lobbying and mobilising public opinion to prevent a State ban on lottery tickets was held deductible under section 37(1) because the material did not show that the activities were an offence or prohibited by law. The Tribunal noted that the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 permits States to conduct lotteries and to prohibit tickets of other States, so efforts to preserve a permitted business were not illegal or contrary to public policy on that record. The Tribunal also held that, after remand, the assessee&#039;s challenge to the disallowance revived before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) had jurisdiction to decide the issue afresh.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 449 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120512</link>
      <description>Commission paid to agents for lobbying and mobilising public opinion to prevent a State ban on lottery tickets was held deductible under section 37(1) because the material did not show that the activities were an offence or prohibited by law. The Tribunal noted that the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 permits States to conduct lotteries and to prohibit tickets of other States, so efforts to preserve a permitted business were not illegal or contrary to public policy on that record. The Tribunal also held that, after remand, the assessee&#039;s challenge to the disallowance revived before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) had jurisdiction to decide the issue afresh.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120512</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>