<?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>1984 (6) TMI 14 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27229</link>
    <description>Losses incidental to an illegal trading activity are deductible in computing taxable profits where they arise directly from the business itself. On the facts accepted in reference, the assessee acquired 28 gold bars, could not explain the source of funds, and was found engaged in smuggling; the confiscation of the gold was therefore treated as a business loss integral to that activity. The High Court held that the taint of illegality does not by itself bar deduction of losses necessarily arising from the business, so the disallowance of the value of the confiscated gold was not justified and the answer was against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:05:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66227" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (6) TMI 14 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27229</link>
      <description>Losses incidental to an illegal trading activity are deductible in computing taxable profits where they arise directly from the business itself. On the facts accepted in reference, the assessee acquired 28 gold bars, could not explain the source of funds, and was found engaged in smuggling; the confiscation of the gold was therefore treated as a business loss integral to that activity. The High Court held that the taint of illegality does not by itself bar deduction of losses necessarily arising from the business, so the disallowance of the value of the confiscated gold was not justified and the answer was against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>