<?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 1898 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296044</link>
    <description>Compensatory railway punitive charges paid for overloading wagons were not hit by the Explanation to section 37(1) because the payments arose under the railway notification and were not for an offence or prohibited act, so the disallowance was deleted. Interest on belated TDS deposit was likewise treated as compensatory, not penal, and was held allowable under section 37(1), because it related to delay in remitting tax deducted from others rather than the assessee&#039;s own tax liability. For section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii), investments not yielding exempt income were excluded and the existence of sufficient own funds was accepted, so the disallowance was deleted. The revenue appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2021 08:56:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=648418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1898 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296044</link>
      <description>Compensatory railway punitive charges paid for overloading wagons were not hit by the Explanation to section 37(1) because the payments arose under the railway notification and were not for an offence or prohibited act, so the disallowance was deleted. Interest on belated TDS deposit was likewise treated as compensatory, not penal, and was held allowable under section 37(1), because it related to delay in remitting tax deducted from others rather than the assessee&#039;s own tax liability. For section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii), investments not yielding exempt income were excluded and the existence of sufficient own funds was accepted, so the disallowance was deleted. The revenue appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>