<?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 (3) TMI 1556 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377535</link>
    <description>Retention money withheld under a construction contract did not accrue on completion because the assessee had no present enforceable right to receive it until the defect liability period expired without defects; it became taxable only when that right arose. Additions linked to work-in-progress and bills receivable were to follow the operative Settlement Commission order for the time being, subject to any later invalidation of that order. Loss on termination of the contract was allowable in the year suffered, even though arbitration was pending, because possible future recovery would be dealt with later. Penalty for concealment could not survive once the underlying additions failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=564847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 1556 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377535</link>
      <description>Retention money withheld under a construction contract did not accrue on completion because the assessee had no present enforceable right to receive it until the defect liability period expired without defects; it became taxable only when that right arose. Additions linked to work-in-progress and bills receivable were to follow the operative Settlement Commission order for the time being, subject to any later invalidation of that order. Loss on termination of the contract was allowable in the year suffered, even though arbitration was pending, because possible future recovery would be dealt with later. Penalty for concealment could not survive once the underlying additions failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377535</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>