<?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 (3) TMI 521 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77905</link>
    <description>A pre-due-date irrevocable transfer of bonus funds to a trust for workers&#039; disbursement was treated as actual payment under section 43B(c) because the assessee had effectively parted with the amount within the prescribed time. On that factual basis, the disallowance was not justified. The same transfer was also held allowable as a deduction, since section 40A(9) did not prevent deduction where the amount had been effectively paid through the trust before the due date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116060" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 521 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77905</link>
      <description>A pre-due-date irrevocable transfer of bonus funds to a trust for workers&#039; disbursement was treated as actual payment under section 43B(c) because the assessee had effectively parted with the amount within the prescribed time. On that factual basis, the disallowance was not justified. The same transfer was also held allowable as a deduction, since section 40A(9) did not prevent deduction where the amount had been effectively paid through the trust before the due date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>