<?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>2004 (9) TMI 74 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10599</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction claim for gratuity payment under section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act. It held that the actual deposit in the fund, not a mere provision, was eligible for deduction. The Tribunal emphasized that the payment had become due in the relevant previous year, supporting the allowability of the deduction. Approval for the gratuity fund was deemed irrelevant as the payment had been made during the relevant period, with retrospective approval granted. The decision established the importance of timely payments and consistency in treatment for similar claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49620" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 74 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10599</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction claim for gratuity payment under section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act. It held that the actual deposit in the fund, not a mere provision, was eligible for deduction. The Tribunal emphasized that the payment had become due in the relevant previous year, supporting the allowability of the deduction. Approval for the gratuity fund was deemed irrelevant as the payment had been made during the relevant period, with retrospective approval granted. The decision established the importance of timely payments and consistency in treatment for similar claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10599</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>