<?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>2000 (2) TMI 15 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5808</link>
    <description>Section 43B deduction for the disputed amount was treated as allowable in assessment year 1986-87, following the earlier governing interpretation of that provision. To prevent a technical double allowance after fresh assessment for 1987-88, the Court used article 142 to adjust the later year by disallowing the same amount there while allowing the revised 1987-88 deduction, so the amount was claimed only once.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 15 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5808</link>
      <description>Section 43B deduction for the disputed amount was treated as allowable in assessment year 1986-87, following the earlier governing interpretation of that provision. To prevent a technical double allowance after fresh assessment for 1987-88, the Court used article 142 to adjust the later year by disallowing the same amount there while allowing the revised 1987-88 deduction, so the amount was claimed only once.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>