<?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>2010 (12) TMI 1160 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175684</link>
    <description>Employees&#039; contribution to PF and ESI paid before filing the return is treated as allowable, so disallowance under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) is not sustained. Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) applies only where the recipient is both a registered shareholder and a beneficial shareholder, so a person holding only one of those capacities falls outside the provision. Adjustment for undervaluation of closing stock under section 145A is not justified where the treatment of excise duty and Cenvat credit does not affect the profit and loss account. The commentary notes that these principles led to rejection of the revenue&#039;s grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 May 2016 13:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407330" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 1160 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175684</link>
      <description>Employees&#039; contribution to PF and ESI paid before filing the return is treated as allowable, so disallowance under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) is not sustained. Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) applies only where the recipient is both a registered shareholder and a beneficial shareholder, so a person holding only one of those capacities falls outside the provision. Adjustment for undervaluation of closing stock under section 145A is not justified where the treatment of excise duty and Cenvat credit does not affect the profit and loss account. The commentary notes that these principles led to rejection of the revenue&#039;s grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>