<?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>2011 (2) TMI 1609 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303098</link>
    <description>Interest paid for non-maintenance of the cash reserve ratio and statutory liquidity ratio was treated as compensatory in nature, not as a penalty under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. On that basis, the expenditure was held allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal&#039;s view was left undisturbed because no independent ground was advanced to displace it, and the issue was stated to be covered by the cited precedent. The claim was therefore accepted in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:23:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=683902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 1609 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303098</link>
      <description>Interest paid for non-maintenance of the cash reserve ratio and statutory liquidity ratio was treated as compensatory in nature, not as a penalty under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. On that basis, the expenditure was held allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal&#039;s view was left undisturbed because no independent ground was advanced to displace it, and the issue was stated to be covered by the cited precedent. The claim was therefore accepted in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303098</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>