<?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>1981 (2) TMI 219 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153164</link>
    <description>Penalties imposed under sections 8(2) and 17(3) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 were held not to be deductible under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Expenditure qualifies only if it is laid out wholly and exclusively for business and is not capital or personal in nature; a payment imposed as a penalty for breach of law is different from a tax or statutory liability that accrues automatically. The court treated the payments as penalties arising from penal action for statutory non-compliance, not as commercial losses incurred in the course of business, and held that the assessee had not proved entitlement to deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2013 17:46:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170200" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (2) TMI 219 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153164</link>
      <description>Penalties imposed under sections 8(2) and 17(3) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 were held not to be deductible under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Expenditure qualifies only if it is laid out wholly and exclusively for business and is not capital or personal in nature; a payment imposed as a penalty for breach of law is different from a tax or statutory liability that accrues automatically. The court treated the payments as penalties arising from penal action for statutory non-compliance, not as commercial losses incurred in the course of business, and held that the assessee had not proved entitlement to deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>