<?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>2016 (1) TMI 367 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270575</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The first issue regarding the disallowance of late deposition of employee&#039;s PF contribution was resolved in favor of the assessee, citing various judgments and statutory provisions. The second issue concerning the disallowance of prior period expenses claimed by the cooperative society and State Govt. undertaking was also decided in favor of the assessee, considering the approvals received during the current year. The Tribunal found no errors in the CIT(A)&#039;s orders and ruled against the Revenue on both grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 367 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270575</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The first issue regarding the disallowance of late deposition of employee&#039;s PF contribution was resolved in favor of the assessee, citing various judgments and statutory provisions. The second issue concerning the disallowance of prior period expenses claimed by the cooperative society and State Govt. undertaking was also decided in favor of the assessee, considering the approvals received during the current year. The Tribunal found no errors in the CIT(A)&#039;s orders and ruled against the Revenue on both grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270575</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>