<?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>1978 (3) TMI 42 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37768</link>
    <description>The High Court of Calcutta ruled that a surplus amount received by the assessee due to devaluation should be treated as a trading receipt and added to the total income for the assessment year. Despite the assessee&#039;s argument that the surplus was non-taxable as it resulted from devaluation by the State, the Court held that it was connected to the business activities and constituted a trading profit. The Court affirmed that the surplus amount was taxable income for the assessee in the relevant assessment year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 10:21:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=76314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (3) TMI 42 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37768</link>
      <description>The High Court of Calcutta ruled that a surplus amount received by the assessee due to devaluation should be treated as a trading receipt and added to the total income for the assessment year. Despite the assessee&#039;s argument that the surplus was non-taxable as it resulted from devaluation by the State, the Court held that it was connected to the business activities and constituted a trading profit. The Court affirmed that the surplus amount was taxable income for the assessee in the relevant assessment year.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37768</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>