<?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>1991 (10) TMI 92 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63960</link>
    <description>Estimated registration charges and stamp-related expenses were disallowed because no lease deed had been executed or registered during the relevant year, so no accrued contractual or statutory liability had crystallised. The allotment letters only contemplated payment if and when execution occurred, and the obligations under the Transfer of Property Act, the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act arise only once a document comes into existence for registration and stamping. The decision in Calcutta Co. Ltd. was inapplicable because it involved an admitted accrued liability to purchasers, unlike the present case where no corresponding third-party liability existed. The disallowance was therefore upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:22:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102402" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (10) TMI 92 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63960</link>
      <description>Estimated registration charges and stamp-related expenses were disallowed because no lease deed had been executed or registered during the relevant year, so no accrued contractual or statutory liability had crystallised. The allotment letters only contemplated payment if and when execution occurred, and the obligations under the Transfer of Property Act, the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act arise only once a document comes into existence for registration and stamping. The decision in Calcutta Co. Ltd. was inapplicable because it involved an admitted accrued liability to purchasers, unlike the present case where no corresponding third-party liability existed. The disallowance was therefore upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>