<?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 (1) TMI 1330 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195763</link>
    <description>The ITAT Jaipur allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of the provision for pay revision. The tribunal considered the basis of the provision, ongoing pay revision process, and settlements between the parties, concluding that the provision made by the appellant was justified. The decision aligned with previous judgments and emphasized that employees were entitled to revised pay from the due date, leading to the deletion of the disallowance initially imposed by lower authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 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=495402" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 1330 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195763</link>
      <description>The ITAT Jaipur allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of the provision for pay revision. The tribunal considered the basis of the provision, ongoing pay revision process, and settlements between the parties, concluding that the provision made by the appellant was justified. The decision aligned with previous judgments and emphasized that employees were entitled to revised pay from the due date, leading to the deletion of the disallowance initially imposed by lower authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195763</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>