<?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>1989 (10) TMI 92 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64244</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed both appeals of the assessee, addressing issues related to disallowances, additions, and deductions under different sections of the IT Act. The Tribunal reversed the order of the CIT (A) regarding disallowance of salary paid to Director-employees, directing the Assessing Officer to apply section 40A(5) with the proviso. The disallowances under section 37(2A) were dismissed as withdrawn. The addition of unclaimed balances as income under section 41(1) was upheld. The working of relief under section 80J was adjusted based on the treatment of proposed dividends. The rejection of the claim under section 80-I was remanded for estimating profits from the industrial undertaking.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Feb 2011 16:23:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102686" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (10) TMI 92 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64244</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed both appeals of the assessee, addressing issues related to disallowances, additions, and deductions under different sections of the IT Act. The Tribunal reversed the order of the CIT (A) regarding disallowance of salary paid to Director-employees, directing the Assessing Officer to apply section 40A(5) with the proviso. The disallowances under section 37(2A) were dismissed as withdrawn. The addition of unclaimed balances as income under section 41(1) was upheld. The working of relief under section 80J was adjusted based on the treatment of proposed dividends. The rejection of the claim under section 80-I was remanded for estimating profits from the industrial undertaking.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>