<?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>2012 (6) TMI 619 - Punjab and Haryana High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214313</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee was not entitled to claim a deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) due to provisions already made under section 36(1)(viia). The judgment highlighted the restriction on deductions when provisions for bad debts have been created, emphasizing compliance with legal provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 619 - Punjab and Haryana High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214313</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee was not entitled to claim a deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) due to provisions already made under section 36(1)(viia). The judgment highlighted the restriction on deductions when provisions for bad debts have been created, emphasizing compliance with legal provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214313</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>