<?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 (12) TMI 134 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219119</link>
    <description>In a chit business, the foreman&#039;s commission, subscribers&#039; dividend, default management, substitution of defaulters and related security obligations were treated as part of one integrated transaction, so real income could not be meaningfully ascertained at each intermediate draw. On that basis, the completed contract method was held appropriate for recognising income only on completion of the chit series, and the corresponding administrative and advertisement expenses were allowed in the year incurred under the matching principle. The claim that dividends received as a chit subscriber were exempt on mutuality was not substantively pursued and failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 134 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219119</link>
      <description>In a chit business, the foreman&#039;s commission, subscribers&#039; dividend, default management, substitution of defaulters and related security obligations were treated as part of one integrated transaction, so real income could not be meaningfully ascertained at each intermediate draw. On that basis, the completed contract method was held appropriate for recognising income only on completion of the chit series, and the corresponding administrative and advertisement expenses were allowed in the year incurred under the matching principle. The claim that dividends received as a chit subscriber were exempt on mutuality was not substantively pursued and failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219119</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>