<?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>1998 (9) TMI 2 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11145</link>
    <description>A provident fund contribution is deductible only if it is made to a recognised or approved fund under the Income-tax Act; a mere exemption under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds Act does not satisfy that requirement, so the claim was disallowed. A payment made to the Government for deputed employees was treated as business expenditure, because its character in the assessee&#039;s hands remained a business outgoing and not a provident fund contribution, so the deduction was allowed. The court also followed earlier decisions to hold that payment for the unexpired portion of a route permit was not revenue expenditure, while a donation to the Chief Minister&#039;s Drought Relief Fund was allowable as a deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 12 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 2 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11145</link>
      <description>A provident fund contribution is deductible only if it is made to a recognised or approved fund under the Income-tax Act; a mere exemption under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds Act does not satisfy that requirement, so the claim was disallowed. A payment made to the Government for deputed employees was treated as business expenditure, because its character in the assessee&#039;s hands remained a business outgoing and not a provident fund contribution, so the deduction was allowed. The court also followed earlier decisions to hold that payment for the unexpired portion of a route permit was not revenue expenditure, while a donation to the Chief Minister&#039;s Drought Relief Fund was allowable as a deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 12 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11145</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>