<?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>1989 (2) TMI 10 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23004</link>
    <description>The court held that the entire payment of gratuity was allowable as a deduction for the assessee, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s claim for bifurcation based on service rendered before or after a takeover. The court directed a reference for the allocation of the cost of route permits for depreciation for a specific assessment year. The court dismissed the petitions in other respects and ordered no costs to be imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:30:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (2) TMI 10 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23004</link>
      <description>The court held that the entire payment of gratuity was allowable as a deduction for the assessee, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s claim for bifurcation based on service rendered before or after a takeover. The court directed a reference for the allocation of the cost of route permits for depreciation for a specific assessment year. The court dismissed the petitions in other respects and ordered no costs to be imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23004</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>