<?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>1962 (3) TMI 81 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168402</link>
    <description>Under the mercantile system, a quantified statutory excise duty demand was treated as an accrued and legally enforceable liability when it crystallised, even though payment was disputed and appeals were pending. Because the demand remained operative and capable of coercive recovery until set aside, it was not merely contingent. The liability was therefore deductible in the relevant accounting year, and the disallowance was held incorrect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:07:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=377062" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (3) TMI 81 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168402</link>
      <description>Under the mercantile system, a quantified statutory excise duty demand was treated as an accrued and legally enforceable liability when it crystallised, even though payment was disputed and appeals were pending. Because the demand remained operative and capable of coercive recovery until set aside, it was not merely contingent. The liability was therefore deductible in the relevant accounting year, and the disallowance was held incorrect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168402</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>