<?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>2022 (7) TMI 1635 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469948</link>
    <description>Penalty paid to a stock exchange for short margin maintenance was treated as a business-related disciplinary charge, not a penalty for infraction of law. The Tribunal applied the view that where the payment arises from regular trading operations and exchange bye-laws, it does not fall within the mischief of the proviso to section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The disallowance was therefore unsustainable, and the amount remained allowable as a deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 10:23:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911054" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 1635 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469948</link>
      <description>Penalty paid to a stock exchange for short margin maintenance was treated as a business-related disciplinary charge, not a penalty for infraction of law. The Tribunal applied the view that where the payment arises from regular trading operations and exchange bye-laws, it does not fall within the mischief of the proviso to section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The disallowance was therefore unsustainable, and the amount remained allowable as a deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469948</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>