<?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 (2) TMI 118 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18547</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the validity of the assessment reopening under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, ruling in favor of the Department. However, the Court decided in favor of the assessee regarding the classification of medical expenses as perquisites under section 40A(5), stating that such expenses should not be considered as perquisites for the purpose of disallowance. The judgment directed communication to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for further proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:42:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57547" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 118 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18547</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the validity of the assessment reopening under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, ruling in favor of the Department. However, the Court decided in favor of the assessee regarding the classification of medical expenses as perquisites under section 40A(5), stating that such expenses should not be considered as perquisites for the purpose of disallowance. The judgment directed communication to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for further proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18547</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>