<?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>1980 (10) TMI 24 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35794</link>
    <description>Forfeited security deposits arising from business contracts with suppliers, purchasers and employees were treated as revenue receipts because the amounts were generated in the course of trading and employment arrangements and were not capital in nature. The commentary also notes that liquidated damages recovered from employees followed the same characterisation as business income. On procedural powers, the Tribunal&#039;s appellate jurisdiction under section 254, read with rules 11 and 29, is described as wide enough to admit an additional ground or evidence where needed to do substantial justice, and a mere earlier omission to raise the point was not enough to refuse admission.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:45:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (10) TMI 24 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35794</link>
      <description>Forfeited security deposits arising from business contracts with suppliers, purchasers and employees were treated as revenue receipts because the amounts were generated in the course of trading and employment arrangements and were not capital in nature. The commentary also notes that liquidated damages recovered from employees followed the same characterisation as business income. On procedural powers, the Tribunal&#039;s appellate jurisdiction under section 254, read with rules 11 and 29, is described as wide enough to admit an additional ground or evidence where needed to do substantial justice, and a mere earlier omission to raise the point was not enough to refuse admission.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35794</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>