https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5460 A statutory impost for income-tax deduction purposes must be examined by its true character, not its label: a purely compensatory levy is deductible, while a composite levy must be apportioned and only the compensatory element allowed. The Court rejected the maintainability objection based on bypassing the reference procedure under section 256(2) and treated the petition as entertainable in the circumstances. Applying the apportionment principle, the levy under section 36(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act was not deductible in full; the penal component had to be disallowed. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal on that basis. en-us Fri, 22 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5460 A statutory impost for income-tax deduction purposes must be examined by its true character, not its label: a purely compensatory levy is deductible, while a composite levy must be apportioned and only the compensatory element allowed. The Court rejected the maintainability objection based on bypassing the reference procedure under section 256(2) and treated the petition as entertainable in the circumstances. Applying the apportionment principle, the levy under section 36(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act was not deductible in full; the penal component had to be disallowed. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal on that basis. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5460