<?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>1994 (11) TMI 83 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19466</link>
    <description>Under the mercantile system, a disputed statutory liability is deductible when, at the time the provision is made, a prudent businessman has a bona fide and reasonable apprehension that the amount may become payable; on that basis, the provision for purchase tax on prawns was allowed. The deduction for sales tax actually paid during the year was not allowed on the facts and timing relevant to the accounting year. For depreciation, the subsidy received was not required to be deducted from the actual cost of machinery, as the existing judicial rule treated such subsidy as not reducing cost. The assessee therefore succeeded on the purchase-tax and subsidy issues, while the sales-tax claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:30:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58465" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 83 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19466</link>
      <description>Under the mercantile system, a disputed statutory liability is deductible when, at the time the provision is made, a prudent businessman has a bona fide and reasonable apprehension that the amount may become payable; on that basis, the provision for purchase tax on prawns was allowed. The deduction for sales tax actually paid during the year was not allowed on the facts and timing relevant to the accounting year. For depreciation, the subsidy received was not required to be deducted from the actual cost of machinery, as the existing judicial rule treated such subsidy as not reducing cost. The assessee therefore succeeded on the purchase-tax and subsidy issues, while the sales-tax claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>