<?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>1987 (12) TMI 70 - ITAT BOMBAY-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59062</link>
    <description>Sales-tax penalty paid under section 36(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act was treated as a deductible business expenditure where it arose from delayed tax payment in the course of trading and not from any infraction of law. The controlling test applied was whether the amount was suffered by the assessee in its capacity as a trader and was connected with the conduct of business. On that basis, the payment was allowed as a revenue deduction and the Department&#039;s objection failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:22:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (12) TMI 70 - ITAT BOMBAY-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59062</link>
      <description>Sales-tax penalty paid under section 36(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act was treated as a deductible business expenditure where it arose from delayed tax payment in the course of trading and not from any infraction of law. The controlling test applied was whether the amount was suffered by the assessee in its capacity as a trader and was connected with the conduct of business. On that basis, the payment was allowed as a revenue deduction and the Department&#039;s objection failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59062</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>