<?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 (11) TMI 744 - ITAT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218729</link>
    <description>Statutory payments made under a special market enactment for the objects of the assessee institution were treated as allowable revenue expenditure, including amounts paid towards Kisan Sadak Nidhi, Goshala Anudhan, Adhosaranchana Nidhi, Gausanvardhan Nidhi, Board Shulk and election expenses. The Tribunal applied earlier orders on the same statutory framework and accepted that these outgoings were not voluntary contributions but business-related statutory payments, so the deductions were allowed. By contrast, the amount credited to Aarakshit Nidhi required fresh factual examination because the nature of the fund, actual incurrence of liability and statutory directions had not been fully examined, so that issue was remanded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 02:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 744 - ITAT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218729</link>
      <description>Statutory payments made under a special market enactment for the objects of the assessee institution were treated as allowable revenue expenditure, including amounts paid towards Kisan Sadak Nidhi, Goshala Anudhan, Adhosaranchana Nidhi, Gausanvardhan Nidhi, Board Shulk and election expenses. The Tribunal applied earlier orders on the same statutory framework and accepted that these outgoings were not voluntary contributions but business-related statutory payments, so the deductions were allowed. By contrast, the amount credited to Aarakshit Nidhi required fresh factual examination because the nature of the fund, actual incurrence of liability and statutory directions had not been fully examined, so that issue was remanded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>