<?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>1985 (10) TMI 129 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64387</link>
    <description>Unpaid purchase tax reflected in mercantile accounts was treated as an accrued statutory liability rather than taxable income, because the liability under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act arose on the purchases themselves and later payment or quantification did not prevent accrual. The jurisdictional High Court authorities applied to hold that, where purchase tax had crystallised under the statutory scheme, an unpaid balance in the purchase tax account could not be brought to tax merely because it remained outstanding at year-end. On that footing, the addition was deleted and the departmental appeal failed, although one Member dissented and viewed the balance as taxable surplus receipt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2011 15:58:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (10) TMI 129 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64387</link>
      <description>Unpaid purchase tax reflected in mercantile accounts was treated as an accrued statutory liability rather than taxable income, because the liability under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act arose on the purchases themselves and later payment or quantification did not prevent accrual. The jurisdictional High Court authorities applied to hold that, where purchase tax had crystallised under the statutory scheme, an unpaid balance in the purchase tax account could not be brought to tax merely because it remained outstanding at year-end. On that footing, the addition was deleted and the departmental appeal failed, although one Member dissented and viewed the balance as taxable surplus receipt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64387</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>