<?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>1986 (11) TMI 102 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64186</link>
    <description>The appeal was partially allowed for statistical purposes. The disallowance under sections 40(C) and 40A(5) was remanded to the Commissioner (A) with instructions to exclude Provident Fund contributions. The deduction of Rs. 40,000 for cash loss due to theft was allowed as a business loss, not considered necessary to add to the truck&#039;s cost for depreciation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Feb 2011 12:53:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (11) TMI 102 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64186</link>
      <description>The appeal was partially allowed for statistical purposes. The disallowance under sections 40(C) and 40A(5) was remanded to the Commissioner (A) with instructions to exclude Provident Fund contributions. The deduction of Rs. 40,000 for cash loss due to theft was allowed as a business loss, not considered necessary to add to the truck&#039;s cost for depreciation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>