<?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 527 - ITAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219512</link>
    <description>The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the disallowance of the commission paid was revoked. The ITAT held that sec. 40(a)(ia) does not apply to expenses already paid before the due date, following precedents set by various cases. The judgments of the ITAT, Delhi Benches, and the Special Bench supported this interpretation, leading to the cancellation of the CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 06:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 527 - ITAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219512</link>
      <description>The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the disallowance of the commission paid was revoked. The ITAT held that sec. 40(a)(ia) does not apply to expenses already paid before the due date, following precedents set by various cases. The judgments of the ITAT, Delhi Benches, and the Special Bench supported this interpretation, leading to the cancellation of the CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219512</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>