<?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>2009 (2) TMI 260 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70693</link>
    <description>Transfer of profits to a statutory reserve fund was treated as application of income, not diversion by overriding title, because the amount remained under the assessee&#039;s control; the deduction was therefore disallowed. Additional finance charges were retained in income on the basis of consistency, as the earlier Tribunal view in the assessee&#039;s own case had not been reversed; the deletion was sustained. Provision for bad debts and diminution in investment value was held to represent asset diminution rather than an unascertained liability, so it could not be added back to book profits; the adjustment was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109032" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 260 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70693</link>
      <description>Transfer of profits to a statutory reserve fund was treated as application of income, not diversion by overriding title, because the amount remained under the assessee&#039;s control; the deduction was therefore disallowed. Additional finance charges were retained in income on the basis of consistency, as the earlier Tribunal view in the assessee&#039;s own case had not been reversed; the deletion was sustained. Provision for bad debts and diminution in investment value was held to represent asset diminution rather than an unascertained liability, so it could not be added back to book profits; the adjustment was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70693</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>