<?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>2019 (1) TMI 1016 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373851</link>
    <description>Advance deposit of central excise duty in the prescribed account current, together with unutilised MODVAT credit, was treated as actual payment for section 43B purposes because the amount stood credited to the Revenue and was no longer under the assessee&#039;s control. The Court applied the principle that the statutory object of section 43B is met when duty is irretrievably deposited, even if later adjusted against clearances, and that such deposit is not a mere advance where the excise liability has already crystallised and the amount is non-refundable. The disallowance was therefore held unsustainable and the deduction was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2019 16:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=553943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 1016 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373851</link>
      <description>Advance deposit of central excise duty in the prescribed account current, together with unutilised MODVAT credit, was treated as actual payment for section 43B purposes because the amount stood credited to the Revenue and was no longer under the assessee&#039;s control. The Court applied the principle that the statutory object of section 43B is met when duty is irretrievably deposited, even if later adjusted against clearances, and that such deposit is not a mere advance where the excise liability has already crystallised and the amount is non-refundable. The disallowance was therefore held unsustainable and the deduction was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373851</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>