<?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 (8) TMI 7 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14791</link>
    <description>The court held that the sales tax penalty could not be considered a liability for valuation purposes, emphasizing that liabilities crystallized on the valuation date must be deducted, regardless of finalization post-valuation date. The court rejected the assessee&#039;s argument that subsequent events should not affect balance sheet liabilities, citing precedent that uncertainties in liabilities without finality should not be considered. Despite the assessee&#039;s reliance on other cases, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that a liability determined to be nil remains nil, regardless of whether it pertains to an individual or a company.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:46:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53791" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 7 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14791</link>
      <description>The court held that the sales tax penalty could not be considered a liability for valuation purposes, emphasizing that liabilities crystallized on the valuation date must be deducted, regardless of finalization post-valuation date. The court rejected the assessee&#039;s argument that subsequent events should not affect balance sheet liabilities, citing precedent that uncertainties in liabilities without finality should not be considered. Despite the assessee&#039;s reliance on other cases, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that a liability determined to be nil remains nil, regardless of whether it pertains to an individual or a company.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14791</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>