<?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>2006 (1) TMI 72 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9591</link>
    <description>Expenditure connected with a deposit-linked incentive scheme was held not deductible under section 37 because the arrangement had the essential features of a prohibited money circulation scheme under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The Court held that once the scheme was treated as prohibited by law, the Explanation to section 37 denied deduction for the related outlay. It further held that the retrospective insertion of the Explanation could be applied directly in the pending reference, because the referred question was broad enough and no fresh factual inquiry was required. Remand to the Tribunal was therefore refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48613" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 72 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9591</link>
      <description>Expenditure connected with a deposit-linked incentive scheme was held not deductible under section 37 because the arrangement had the essential features of a prohibited money circulation scheme under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The Court held that once the scheme was treated as prohibited by law, the Explanation to section 37 denied deduction for the related outlay. It further held that the retrospective insertion of the Explanation could be applied directly in the pending reference, because the referred question was broad enough and no fresh factual inquiry was required. Remand to the Tribunal was therefore refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9591</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>