<?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>2011 (11) TMI 18 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206845</link>
    <description>Contractual liability for post-manufacturing defects and warranty-related maintenance was deductible at the agreed rate where the assessee was bound under the bus supply arrangement to bear rectification, repair and defect-removal costs. The agreement allowed a fixed amount to be settled by mutual consent, and the record showed that the higher amount had been withheld towards the assessee&#039;s full liability. In the absence of material supporting a lower allowance, restricting the deduction to a reduced per-vehicle amount was unjustified. The deduction was therefore allowed at the agreed per-vehicle amount, and the question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180328" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 18 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206845</link>
      <description>Contractual liability for post-manufacturing defects and warranty-related maintenance was deductible at the agreed rate where the assessee was bound under the bus supply arrangement to bear rectification, repair and defect-removal costs. The agreement allowed a fixed amount to be settled by mutual consent, and the record showed that the higher amount had been withheld towards the assessee&#039;s full liability. In the absence of material supporting a lower allowance, restricting the deduction to a reduced per-vehicle amount was unjustified. The deduction was therefore allowed at the agreed per-vehicle amount, and the question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206845</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>