<?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>2014 (3) TMI 1101 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195765</link>
    <description>Deferred sales tax liability settled early at net present value was treated as a loan-like obligation and not as a remission or cessation of trading liability, so section 41(1) did not apply. Expenditure on a fly ash handling system was characterised as revenue because it was incurred to secure business inputs and no asset came into the assessee&#039;s ownership. A contribution for construction of a hospital was held allowable as business expenditure where it was commercially expedient and linked to employee welfare and business goodwill. Ad hoc disallowances from welfare, gift and sales promotion expenses were rejected because no specific inadmissible items were identified and related fringe benefit tax had already been paid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:09:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495400" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 1101 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195765</link>
      <description>Deferred sales tax liability settled early at net present value was treated as a loan-like obligation and not as a remission or cessation of trading liability, so section 41(1) did not apply. Expenditure on a fly ash handling system was characterised as revenue because it was incurred to secure business inputs and no asset came into the assessee&#039;s ownership. A contribution for construction of a hospital was held allowable as business expenditure where it was commercially expedient and linked to employee welfare and business goodwill. Ad hoc disallowances from welfare, gift and sales promotion expenses were rejected because no specific inadmissible items were identified and related fringe benefit tax had already been paid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195765</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>