<?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>1987 (11) TMI 131 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67588</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Department&#039;s reference application, ruling that the refund of excise duty did not qualify as income for the assessee as there was no cessation of liability towards the customers. The Tribunal determined that the refund represented a liability towards the customers and did not amount to income under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. The issue was considered a factual finding, and no question of law was identified by the Tribunal, leading to the rejection of the reference application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:35:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (11) TMI 131 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67588</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Department&#039;s reference application, ruling that the refund of excise duty did not qualify as income for the assessee as there was no cessation of liability towards the customers. The Tribunal determined that the refund represented a liability towards the customers and did not amount to income under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. The issue was considered a factual finding, and no question of law was identified by the Tribunal, leading to the rejection of the reference application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67588</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>