<?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 1359 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374194</link>
    <description>Delayed provident fund and ESI deduction was not adjudicated on merits. Sale proceeds of Grevellea trees were treated consistently with the Court&#039;s earlier ruling and the assessee succeeded. The transfer of two estates was found, on the agreement and surrounding facts, to be a going concern transfer and not a slump sale attracting section 50B. Provision for gratuity was treated as an ascertained liability and not added back under section 115JB. Interest disallowance on advances to subsidiary companies failed because sufficient non-interest-bearing funds were available. Sale of old and unyielding rubber trees was held not to generate agricultural income, so rule 7A did not apply. However, consideration from sale of rural agricultural land was held not excludible from book profit under section 115JB.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2019 12:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=555124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 1359 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374194</link>
      <description>Delayed provident fund and ESI deduction was not adjudicated on merits. Sale proceeds of Grevellea trees were treated consistently with the Court&#039;s earlier ruling and the assessee succeeded. The transfer of two estates was found, on the agreement and surrounding facts, to be a going concern transfer and not a slump sale attracting section 50B. Provision for gratuity was treated as an ascertained liability and not added back under section 115JB. Interest disallowance on advances to subsidiary companies failed because sufficient non-interest-bearing funds were available. Sale of old and unyielding rubber trees was held not to generate agricultural income, so rule 7A did not apply. However, consideration from sale of rural agricultural land was held not excludible from book profit under section 115JB.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374194</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>