<?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>2011 (12) TMI 697 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272779</link>
    <description>Section 43B disallowance was held unsustainable where the record, including the audit report and supporting details, showed the relevant payments were made before the due date for filing the return and no factual perversity was shown; the assessee&#039;s claim was upheld. A compulsory contribution to the Cooperative Education Fund was also treated as allowable because it was statutorily mandated under the applicable cooperative law and therefore had the character of a compulsory expenditure rather than a voluntary application of income; the deduction was allowed. Both Revenue challenges failed and the assessee&#039;s entitlement to the disputed deductions was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 May 2018 15:27:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 697 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272779</link>
      <description>Section 43B disallowance was held unsustainable where the record, including the audit report and supporting details, showed the relevant payments were made before the due date for filing the return and no factual perversity was shown; the assessee&#039;s claim was upheld. A compulsory contribution to the Cooperative Education Fund was also treated as allowable because it was statutorily mandated under the applicable cooperative law and therefore had the character of a compulsory expenditure rather than a voluntary application of income; the deduction was allowed. Both Revenue challenges failed and the assessee&#039;s entitlement to the disputed deductions was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>