<?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 (6) TMI 286 - ITAT RANCHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361459</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 53,04,968 as a contingent liability for the assessment year 2012-13. The appellant&#039;s argument regarding the amount being retention money was not consistent throughout the proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining coherence in arguments and adhering to legal and accounting standards in determining the allowability of expenses under the Income Tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2018 08:58:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522722" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 286 - ITAT RANCHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361459</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 53,04,968 as a contingent liability for the assessment year 2012-13. The appellant&#039;s argument regarding the amount being retention money was not consistent throughout the proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining coherence in arguments and adhering to legal and accounting standards in determining the allowability of expenses under the Income Tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>