<?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 (12) TMI 187 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351918</link>
    <description>Bid loss incurred by a chit subscriber on lifting the chit was treated as allowable in full in the year the chit was auctioned, because the discount arose immediately when the chit was prized and was linked to the subscriber&#039;s business activity. Applying mercantile accounting principles, the Tribunal held that income and loss accruing in the relevant previous year must be recognised in that year. It also noted that the chit transaction is distinct from debenture discount or deferred expenditure, and that the statutory chit scheme has overriding effect. The Revenue&#039;s disallowance was therefore not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2017 08:14:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 187 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351918</link>
      <description>Bid loss incurred by a chit subscriber on lifting the chit was treated as allowable in full in the year the chit was auctioned, because the discount arose immediately when the chit was prized and was linked to the subscriber&#039;s business activity. Applying mercantile accounting principles, the Tribunal held that income and loss accruing in the relevant previous year must be recognised in that year. It also noted that the chit transaction is distinct from debenture discount or deferred expenditure, and that the statutory chit scheme has overriding effect. The Revenue&#039;s disallowance was therefore not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>