<?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>2018 (4) TMI 311 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358200</link>
    <description>The High Court directed the ITAT to adjudicate the issues of provision for warranty and provision for liquidated damages. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, recognizing both provisions as valid expenses based on established accounting principles and judicial precedents. The Department&#039;s appeal was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision on both issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2018 07:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 311 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358200</link>
      <description>The High Court directed the ITAT to adjudicate the issues of provision for warranty and provision for liquidated damages. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, recognizing both provisions as valid expenses based on established accounting principles and judicial precedents. The Department&#039;s appeal was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision on both issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>