<?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 (3) TMI 1225 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192993</link>
    <description>The tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax&#039;s order under Section 263 was not in accordance with the law and quashed it. It emphasized that the Assessing Officer had conducted a proper enquiry and that the Keyman Insurance Policies were valid for deduction under the Income Tax Act. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the tribunal concluded that the premium paid for the Keyman Insurance Policies was an allowable business expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2017 14:23:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=479934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1225 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192993</link>
      <description>The tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax&#039;s order under Section 263 was not in accordance with the law and quashed it. It emphasized that the Assessing Officer had conducted a proper enquiry and that the Keyman Insurance Policies were valid for deduction under the Income Tax Act. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the tribunal concluded that the premium paid for the Keyman Insurance Policies was an allowable business expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>