<?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 (5) TMI 1326 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190781</link>
    <description>A recurring privilege fee paid to secure and continue liquor business rights was treated as revenue expenditure under section 37(1), because it was an annual business outgo with no enduring asset or capital advantage and was not a mere appropriation of profits. Unpaid excise duty on goods still lying in a bonded warehouse was held outside closing stock valuation under section 145A, as the duty had neither been paid nor become payable on removal. Employees&#039; PF and ESI contributions deposited before the return-filing due date were allowable despite delay under the welfare statutes. The article states that all three issues were resolved in favour of the assessees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2021 14:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 1326 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190781</link>
      <description>A recurring privilege fee paid to secure and continue liquor business rights was treated as revenue expenditure under section 37(1), because it was an annual business outgo with no enduring asset or capital advantage and was not a mere appropriation of profits. Unpaid excise duty on goods still lying in a bonded warehouse was held outside closing stock valuation under section 145A, as the duty had neither been paid nor become payable on removal. Employees&#039; PF and ESI contributions deposited before the return-filing due date were allowable despite delay under the welfare statutes. The article states that all three issues were resolved in favour of the assessees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>