<?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>1989 (9) TMI 24 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23449</link>
    <description>Penalty paid for infringement of import regulations was examined for deductibility under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The factual record was incomplete because the orders imposing the original penalty and reducing it on appeal were not before the Court, so the true character of the payment could not be fully determined. On the material available, the question was answered in the affirmative and the expenditure was treated as allowable in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:23:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 24 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23449</link>
      <description>Penalty paid for infringement of import regulations was examined for deductibility under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The factual record was incomplete because the orders imposing the original penalty and reducing it on appeal were not before the Court, so the true character of the payment could not be fully determined. On the material available, the question was answered in the affirmative and the expenditure was treated as allowable in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23449</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>