<?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>1965 (7) TMI 39 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117821</link>
    <description>Under the mercantile system, a bonus provision is deductible only if it reflects a real, enforceable and ascertained liability. A unilateral shift from actual payment to accrual basis is ineffective unless it is a bona fide and consistently applied change in the regular method of accounting. Where there is no proof of a workers&#039; claim, settlement, or industrial adjudication fixing the obligation, the provision remains contingent and unascertained and is not allowable as expenditure for income-tax purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154818" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (7) TMI 39 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117821</link>
      <description>Under the mercantile system, a bonus provision is deductible only if it reflects a real, enforceable and ascertained liability. A unilateral shift from actual payment to accrual basis is ineffective unless it is a bona fide and consistently applied change in the regular method of accounting. Where there is no proof of a workers&#039; claim, settlement, or industrial adjudication fixing the obligation, the provision remains contingent and unascertained and is not allowable as expenditure for income-tax purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>