<?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>2012 (1) TMI 331 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195736</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, a banking company, allowing the deduction of &amp;amp;8377; 30 lakh paid to LIC as premium under sec. 43B(f). The revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the eligibility of the payment for leave encashment benefit under the mercantile system of accounting was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the liability was discharged through the insurance policy, making the premium payment eligible for deduction. The disallowance was deleted, and the appeal was dismissed on 11th January, 2012.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2017 12:19:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 331 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195736</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, a banking company, allowing the deduction of &amp;amp;8377; 30 lakh paid to LIC as premium under sec. 43B(f). The revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the eligibility of the payment for leave encashment benefit under the mercantile system of accounting was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the liability was discharged through the insurance policy, making the premium payment eligible for deduction. The disallowance was deleted, and the appeal was dismissed on 11th January, 2012.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>