<?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>2013 (5) TMI 310 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233725</link>
    <description>A mere estimate for access charges was not deductible as an accrued and ascertained business liability because the exact obligation and identifiable payees were not established with certainty. The Tribunal treated the provision as an unascertained liability, noted the assessee&#039;s inconsistent position on the deduction and tax deduction at source, and distinguished the authorities relied on as factually different. The disallowance was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 310 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233725</link>
      <description>A mere estimate for access charges was not deductible as an accrued and ascertained business liability because the exact obligation and identifiable payees were not established with certainty. The Tribunal treated the provision as an unascertained liability, noted the assessee&#039;s inconsistent position on the deduction and tax deduction at source, and distinguished the authorities relied on as factually different. The disallowance was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>