<?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>2001 (3) TMI 20 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13778</link>
    <description>HC upheld the Tribunal&#039;s order in favour of the assessee, a Central Government undertaking. It held that excise and customs duty actually paid and included in closing stock are allowable as deduction under section 43B, subject to corresponding adjustment by adding such amounts to opening stock of the subsequent year. The concurrent factual finding that the duties formed part of closing stock raised no substantial question of law. On staff sports and welfare expenses, HC held that reimbursements to an employees&#039; club for staff welfare activities did not attract section 40A(9), again raising no substantial question of law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2025 17:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=52781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 20 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13778</link>
      <description>HC upheld the Tribunal&#039;s order in favour of the assessee, a Central Government undertaking. It held that excise and customs duty actually paid and included in closing stock are allowable as deduction under section 43B, subject to corresponding adjustment by adding such amounts to opening stock of the subsequent year. The concurrent factual finding that the duties formed part of closing stock raised no substantial question of law. On staff sports and welfare expenses, HC held that reimbursements to an employees&#039; club for staff welfare activities did not attract section 40A(9), again raising no substantial question of law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>