<?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>2003 (7) TMI 258 - ITAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56546</link>
    <description>A receipt supported by records as a commercial deposit from lottery agents could not be taxed as unexplained income where the books were accepted and the same amount had already formed the basis of penalty proceedings for cash acceptance. Loss on unsold lottery tickets was allowed as a business loss because the assessee carried on a lottery business on commission basis, maintained records, and the loss was shown to be real and incidental to business. Disallowances of general expenses, car depreciation, hire charges, and travelling expenses were sustained because they were supported by voucher defects, personal-use concerns, lack of agreement, and a rule 6D finding, with no material showing them to be arbitrary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 13:42:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=95008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 258 - ITAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56546</link>
      <description>A receipt supported by records as a commercial deposit from lottery agents could not be taxed as unexplained income where the books were accepted and the same amount had already formed the basis of penalty proceedings for cash acceptance. Loss on unsold lottery tickets was allowed as a business loss because the assessee carried on a lottery business on commission basis, maintained records, and the loss was shown to be real and incidental to business. Disallowances of general expenses, car depreciation, hire charges, and travelling expenses were sustained because they were supported by voucher defects, personal-use concerns, lack of agreement, and a rule 6D finding, with no material showing them to be arbitrary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>