<?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>1971 (9) TMI 57 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8843</link>
    <description>Section 58K(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, applies only where an employer-maintained provident fund is transferred to trustees and, on cessation of employment, the trustees pay the employee the accumulated balance in the ordinary course under the fund rules. On the stated facts, the provident funds were distributed after amalgamation pursuant to court orders, when the trust had already become extinct and the funds had been liquidated. That mode of payment did not satisfy the statutory requirement of payment of the accumulated balance due under the section. Section 10(2)(xv) also did not independently sustain the claim. The deduction was therefore unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (9) TMI 57 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8843</link>
      <description>Section 58K(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, applies only where an employer-maintained provident fund is transferred to trustees and, on cessation of employment, the trustees pay the employee the accumulated balance in the ordinary course under the fund rules. On the stated facts, the provident funds were distributed after amalgamation pursuant to court orders, when the trust had already become extinct and the funds had been liquidated. That mode of payment did not satisfy the statutory requirement of payment of the accumulated balance due under the section. Section 10(2)(xv) also did not independently sustain the claim. The deduction was therefore unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>