<?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 (10) TMI 758 - ITAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217820</link>
    <description>Service tax paid on receipts from services rendered was treated as a statutory business liability and not a penalty, so the disallowance was deleted. UPS was regarded as an inseparable computer peripheral necessary for the system&#039;s functioning, making the higher depreciation rate applicable. Pension fund contribution was held not to be hit by section 40A(9) where it was a regular statutory payment made through the prescribed mechanism and consistently allowed in earlier years, so the disallowance was upheld as deleted. On advertisement and sales promotion expenditure, the appellate reasoning was found inadequate, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 758 - ITAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217820</link>
      <description>Service tax paid on receipts from services rendered was treated as a statutory business liability and not a penalty, so the disallowance was deleted. UPS was regarded as an inseparable computer peripheral necessary for the system&#039;s functioning, making the higher depreciation rate applicable. Pension fund contribution was held not to be hit by section 40A(9) where it was a regular statutory payment made through the prescribed mechanism and consistently allowed in earlier years, so the disallowance was upheld as deleted. On advertisement and sales promotion expenditure, the appellate reasoning was found inadequate, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217820</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>