<?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>1980 (12) TMI 103 - ITAT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68929</link>
    <description>Interest on borrowings for agricultural purposes was treated as governed by the special deduction provision, so the general deduction provision could not be used for the disallowed balance; only the limited allowance already granted was sustained. Medical expenses were allowed on accrual basis because the liability arose when the bills were raised and communicated. Elephant-chasing expenses were accepted only in part as recurring field-protection expenditure. Gratuity liability was disallowed because it was not supported by actuarial valuation or a proper reserve. The income estimates for rubber, paddy and coconut were partly reduced, and some related repairs were allowed while unsupported ancillary claims were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2011 11:01:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107303" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (12) TMI 103 - ITAT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68929</link>
      <description>Interest on borrowings for agricultural purposes was treated as governed by the special deduction provision, so the general deduction provision could not be used for the disallowed balance; only the limited allowance already granted was sustained. Medical expenses were allowed on accrual basis because the liability arose when the bills were raised and communicated. Elephant-chasing expenses were accepted only in part as recurring field-protection expenditure. Gratuity liability was disallowed because it was not supported by actuarial valuation or a proper reserve. The income estimates for rubber, paddy and coconut were partly reduced, and some related repairs were allowed while unsupported ancillary claims were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>