<?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 (7) TMI 201 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70458</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the revenue&#039;s position, ruling that the provision for deduction should relate to gratuity payments payable during the year of account. The appeal by the assessee regarding the claimed deduction for incremental gratuity liability for the assessment year 1981-82 was dismissed. The ITAT emphasized the Supreme Court&#039;s interpretation of section 40A(7) and concluded that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of Rs. 7,25,972 based on legal principles and precedents discussed in the judgment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108803" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (7) TMI 201 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70458</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the revenue&#039;s position, ruling that the provision for deduction should relate to gratuity payments payable during the year of account. The appeal by the assessee regarding the claimed deduction for incremental gratuity liability for the assessment year 1981-82 was dismissed. The ITAT emphasized the Supreme Court&#039;s interpretation of section 40A(7) and concluded that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of Rs. 7,25,972 based on legal principles and precedents discussed in the judgment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>