<?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 251 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248347</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Ld CIT(A) and rejected the revenue&#039;s appeal, ruling that the payment by the assessee to customers for property delay was compensatory, not penal. The Tribunal emphasized that such payments were common in the industry and allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, distinguishing contrary case law cited by the revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357181" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 251 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248347</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Ld CIT(A) and rejected the revenue&#039;s appeal, ruling that the payment by the assessee to customers for property delay was compensatory, not penal. The Tribunal emphasized that such payments were common in the industry and allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, distinguishing contrary case law cited by the revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248347</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>