<?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>2018 (10) TMI 497 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368531</link>
    <description>Under the tonnage tax scheme, only receipts with a direct nexus to core shipping operations or prescribed incidental activities form part of core income, so liquidated damages, breach-related compensation, miscellaneous recoveries, EMD forfeitures and similar independent receipts were excluded. The assessee&#039;s claim that the dredger-related compensation was a capital receipt also failed for lack of supporting facts. Write-backs of provisions for bad debts and other provisions could not be finally classified on the record and were remitted for factual verification. Separate deduction for expenses said to relate to non-core receipts was disallowed because no separate books were maintained and the claim risked double deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:09:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537708" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 497 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368531</link>
      <description>Under the tonnage tax scheme, only receipts with a direct nexus to core shipping operations or prescribed incidental activities form part of core income, so liquidated damages, breach-related compensation, miscellaneous recoveries, EMD forfeitures and similar independent receipts were excluded. The assessee&#039;s claim that the dredger-related compensation was a capital receipt also failed for lack of supporting facts. Write-backs of provisions for bad debts and other provisions could not be finally classified on the record and were remitted for factual verification. Separate deduction for expenses said to relate to non-core receipts was disallowed because no separate books were maintained and the claim risked double deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368531</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>