<?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>1995 (3) TMI 48 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18863</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to disallow the deductions in a case involving the disallowance of claims for deduction of accrued gratuity liability and provisions for gratuity. The Court found that the assessee did not comply with the requirements of section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, specifically regarding the transfer of provisioned amounts to the approved gratuity fund within specified timeframes. Additionally, the Court determined that the liability for the provisioned amount pertained to the preceding assessment year and could not be claimed again. The decision favored the Revenue over the assessee on all three issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:57:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 48 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18863</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to disallow the deductions in a case involving the disallowance of claims for deduction of accrued gratuity liability and provisions for gratuity. The Court found that the assessee did not comply with the requirements of section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, specifically regarding the transfer of provisioned amounts to the approved gratuity fund within specified timeframes. Additionally, the Court determined that the liability for the provisioned amount pertained to the preceding assessment year and could not be claimed again. The decision favored the Revenue over the assessee on all three issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18863</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>