<?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>1969 (3) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7805</link>
    <description>A statutory payment made for delayed cess was treated as a levy imposed for default in payment, not as an ordinary business outgoing. Applying the principle that a penalty for breach of law is not a commercial expense, the Court held that it was neither laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes nor incidental to the carrying on of business. The deduction was therefore not allowable under either section 10(1) or section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (3) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7805</link>
      <description>A statutory payment made for delayed cess was treated as a levy imposed for default in payment, not as an ordinary business outgoing. Applying the principle that a penalty for breach of law is not a commercial expense, the Court held that it was neither laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes nor incidental to the carrying on of business. The deduction was therefore not allowable under either section 10(1) or section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>