<?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>1996 (11) TMI 11 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16654</link>
    <description>Gratuity contribution claimed as deduction cannot be disallowed merely because it lacks actuarial valuation where the liability is governed by a statutory scheme and paid to an approved gratuity trust. The relevant question is whether the payment represents a statutory gratuity obligation under the applicable agricultural income-tax framework and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; actuarial valuation is relevant only when no statutory basis governs the liability. Because the revisional authority did not examine that statutory basis, the disallowance was not sustainable on the sole ground of absence of actuarial valuation and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:09:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 11 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16654</link>
      <description>Gratuity contribution claimed as deduction cannot be disallowed merely because it lacks actuarial valuation where the liability is governed by a statutory scheme and paid to an approved gratuity trust. The relevant question is whether the payment represents a statutory gratuity obligation under the applicable agricultural income-tax framework and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; actuarial valuation is relevant only when no statutory basis governs the liability. Because the revisional authority did not examine that statutory basis, the disallowance was not sustainable on the sole ground of absence of actuarial valuation and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>