<?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 (8) TMI 70 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24036</link>
    <description>Receipts from surrender of import entitlements were treated as revenue income because they arose from the assessee&#039;s export-linked business, so the amount was taxable as business income. Stock discrepancies reflected a higher stock declaration to the bank than in the books, and the addition was sustained on identical facts to the prior year. Loss on premature sale of Government securities was held capital in nature because the assessee was not a securities dealer and no business nexus was shown, so it was not deductible. The Tribunal&#039;s power to admit a new ground was affirmed where facts were already on record and hearing was available. Interest under section 18A(6) and provident fund damages were not allowable on binding precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:25:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63034" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 70 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24036</link>
      <description>Receipts from surrender of import entitlements were treated as revenue income because they arose from the assessee&#039;s export-linked business, so the amount was taxable as business income. Stock discrepancies reflected a higher stock declaration to the bank than in the books, and the addition was sustained on identical facts to the prior year. Loss on premature sale of Government securities was held capital in nature because the assessee was not a securities dealer and no business nexus was shown, so it was not deductible. The Tribunal&#039;s power to admit a new ground was affirmed where facts were already on record and hearing was available. Interest under section 18A(6) and provident fund damages were not allowable on binding precedent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24036</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>