<?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 (11) TMI 380 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370037</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Assessing Officer&#039;s disallowance of provisions for contract loss amounting to Rs. 1,33,41,882. The Tribunal found that the provisions for Rs. 70,00,000 and Rs. 55,00,000 were not crystallized liabilities during the relevant financial year, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to allow these provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2018 11:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541077" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 380 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370037</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Assessing Officer&#039;s disallowance of provisions for contract loss amounting to Rs. 1,33,41,882. The Tribunal found that the provisions for Rs. 70,00,000 and Rs. 55,00,000 were not crystallized liabilities during the relevant financial year, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to allow these provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>