<?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 (11) TMI 1187 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335169</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decisions on the accounting treatment of additional finance charges and the permissibility of a hybrid accounting system. The appeal was dismissed regarding the tax treatment under Section 43D, as the assessee did not meet the criteria specified in the section. Furthermore, the provision for bad debts could not be added back while computing book profits, based on a previous Division Bench ruling.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1187 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335169</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decisions on the accounting treatment of additional finance charges and the permissibility of a hybrid accounting system. The appeal was dismissed regarding the tax treatment under Section 43D, as the assessee did not meet the criteria specified in the section. Furthermore, the provision for bad debts could not be added back while computing book profits, based on a previous Division Bench ruling.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335169</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>