<?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 85 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19470</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, allowing the deduction of additional duty as a legitimate business expenditure. The Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, stating no question of law arose and emphasizing the prudent treatment of the liability by the assessee. Additionally, the Court rejected the Revenue&#039;s argument on the neutralizing effect of the allowance, finding it unsubstantiated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:39:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58469" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 85 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19470</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, allowing the deduction of additional duty as a legitimate business expenditure. The Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, stating no question of law arose and emphasizing the prudent treatment of the liability by the assessee. Additionally, the Court rejected the Revenue&#039;s argument on the neutralizing effect of the allowance, finding it unsubstantiated.</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=19470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>