<?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>2017 (9) TMI 1585 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348828</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that disallowance of contributions towards the Gratuity Fund should not be solely based on pending approval if actual payments were made towards the fund. The decision highlighted the distinction between provisions and actual payments under section 40A(7) of the Act, resulting in the partial allowance of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491026" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1585 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348828</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that disallowance of contributions towards the Gratuity Fund should not be solely based on pending approval if actual payments were made towards the fund. The decision highlighted the distinction between provisions and actual payments under section 40A(7) of the Act, resulting in the partial allowance of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348828</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>