<?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>2014 (6) TMI 108 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248204</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, ruling that the market cess paid by the Assessee was not covered under section 43B of the IT Act, 1961. The payment was made before the extended due date of filing the return, as allowed by the CBDT order, and was deemed a fee for utilizing market facilities, not a tax. This distinction led to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s disallowance claim under section 43B.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2014 11:05:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 108 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248204</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, ruling that the market cess paid by the Assessee was not covered under section 43B of the IT Act, 1961. The payment was made before the extended due date of filing the return, as allowed by the CBDT order, and was deemed a fee for utilizing market facilities, not a tax. This distinction led to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s disallowance claim under section 43B.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248204</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>