<?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>2006 (1) TMI 76 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9619</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the appellant, an industrial company, regarding the treatment of retention money retained by a principal contractor. The court held that since the retention money had not been received during the assessment year and was contingent upon satisfactory performance, it did not accrue as income for taxation purposes. Upholding the decisions of the appellate authority and the Tribunal, the court emphasized that only income that has accrued or been received is taxable under the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the appellant&#039;s appeal against the inclusion of the retention amount in its income was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 76 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9619</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the appellant, an industrial company, regarding the treatment of retention money retained by a principal contractor. The court held that since the retention money had not been received during the assessment year and was contingent upon satisfactory performance, it did not accrue as income for taxation purposes. Upholding the decisions of the appellate authority and the Tribunal, the court emphasized that only income that has accrued or been received is taxable under the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the appellant&#039;s appeal against the inclusion of the retention amount in its income was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>