Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2001 (5) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncome-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs.14,000 being the fine paid by the assessee in lieu of confiscation of the goods, could not be taken into account as part of the actual cost of the goods and consequently wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....they were of very precious metal. The assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The said authority sustained the loss to the extent of Rs.14,000 on a different ground, viz., that the said amount represented penalty imposed on the assessee for violation of the customs laws in 1973 when these were purchased and the said amount of Rs.14,000 could not be regarded as th....