<?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>2008 (1) TMI 381 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33582</link>
    <description>Contributions to a school and a hospital development committee were not deductible under section 37(1) because they lacked the required business nexus. The assessee&#039;s alternative claim arose only after the section 80G deduction failed, as the recipients were not registered and could not issue the necessary certificates. The Court found that the payments did not advance business prospects, and any benefit to employees or their children was too remote to qualify as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The question referred was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 381 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33582</link>
      <description>Contributions to a school and a hospital development committee were not deductible under section 37(1) because they lacked the required business nexus. The assessee&#039;s alternative claim arose only after the section 80G deduction failed, as the recipients were not registered and could not issue the necessary certificates. The Court found that the payments did not advance business prospects, and any benefit to employees or their children was too remote to qualify as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The question referred was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>