<?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>2020 (9) TMI 613 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398494</link>
    <description>Payment made to the Reserve Bank of India for shortfall in Cash Reserve Ratio and Statutory Liquidity Ratio was treated as compensatory rather than penal, so it qualified as deductible business expenditure. The tribunal relied on jurisdictional precedent and held that the liability had arisen and crystallised during the year. The fact that part of the claim was booked as a provision did not affect deductibility. The disallowance was therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2020 16:51:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 613 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398494</link>
      <description>Payment made to the Reserve Bank of India for shortfall in Cash Reserve Ratio and Statutory Liquidity Ratio was treated as compensatory rather than penal, so it qualified as deductible business expenditure. The tribunal relied on jurisdictional precedent and held that the liability had arisen and crystallised during the year. The fact that part of the claim was booked as a provision did not affect deductibility. The disallowance was therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>