<?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>1987 (11) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24999</link>
    <description>A penalty paid for breach of law is not an allowable deduction because it is not expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes, so it cannot reduce taxable income. On reassessment, proceedings under section 147(b) were supported by material information that the penalty had been paid and had not been disclosed in the return, so the initiation was not without jurisdiction. The application for a statement of the case was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:43:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63997" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (11) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24999</link>
      <description>A penalty paid for breach of law is not an allowable deduction because it is not expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes, so it cannot reduce taxable income. On reassessment, proceedings under section 147(b) were supported by material information that the penalty had been paid and had not been disclosed in the return, so the initiation was not without jurisdiction. The application for a statement of the case was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>