<?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>2016 (8) TMI 511 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331127</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the payment of Rs. 12,50,000/- was compensatory and, therefore, an allowable business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court distinguished between compensatory and punitive payments, emphasizing that the payment in question aimed at addressing environmental damage and was not a penalty for an offense. As a result, the court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s decision, allowing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438258" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 511 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331127</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the payment of Rs. 12,50,000/- was compensatory and, therefore, an allowable business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court distinguished between compensatory and punitive payments, emphasizing that the payment in question aimed at addressing environmental damage and was not a penalty for an offense. As a result, the court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s decision, allowing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331127</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>