<?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 (5) TMI 420 - Kerala High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201602</link>
    <description>A business loss deduction cannot be claimed on the basis of a transaction that has already been finally found to be bogus. The earlier concurrent finding that the alleged purchase and lease arrangement never took place, and that the depreciation claim rested on a fictitious transaction, had attained finality because the assessee did not pursue that challenge. Later reliance on settlement papers, alleged payment, or rental adjustments could not reopen the same sham transaction or create a legally sustainable loss. The additional documents did not prove a genuine lease or any actual business loss, and the Tribunal&#039;s acceptance of the claim was held to be unsupported by the record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 420 - Kerala High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201602</link>
      <description>A business loss deduction cannot be claimed on the basis of a transaction that has already been finally found to be bogus. The earlier concurrent finding that the alleged purchase and lease arrangement never took place, and that the depreciation claim rested on a fictitious transaction, had attained finality because the assessee did not pursue that challenge. Later reliance on settlement papers, alleged payment, or rental adjustments could not reopen the same sham transaction or create a legally sustainable loss. The additional documents did not prove a genuine lease or any actual business loss, and the Tribunal&#039;s acceptance of the claim was held to be unsupported by the record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201602</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>