TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court upholds gratuity claim but rejects development rebate. Payment to approved fund required. Development rebate denied for prior grant.</h1> <h3>Kothari Sugars And Chemicals Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax</h3> The High Court of Madras upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision to allow a claim of Rs. 66,482 for gratuity liability but rejected the claim for ... Agreement For Avoidance, Income Tax Act, Permanent Establishment, Tax Avoidance The High Court of Madras held that the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing a claim of Rs. 66,482 for gratuity liability but rejected the claim for development rebate of Rs. 14,40,468. The Tribunal found no provision made in the accounts for gratuity liability, making the deduction allowable only when payment is made to an approved fund. The development rebate claim for the assessment year 1974-75 was not allowed as it had been granted earlier for a different assessment year.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
