<?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 (12) TMI 1164 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241499</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the disallowance of expenditure on wages to casual employees under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Court upheld the decision based on insufficient documentation and lack of proof of expenditure, emphasizing that without proper evidence, the benefit of Section 37 cannot be granted. The Court highlighted the importance of considering various sections in conjunction and concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Dec 2013 06:58:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340678" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 1164 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241499</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the disallowance of expenditure on wages to casual employees under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The Court upheld the decision based on insufficient documentation and lack of proof of expenditure, emphasizing that without proper evidence, the benefit of Section 37 cannot be granted. The Court highlighted the importance of considering various sections in conjunction and concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241499</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>