<?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 (3) TMI 33 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23401</link>
    <description>Deduction under section 40A(7)(b)(ii) for gratuity-related liability was rejected because the Tribunal&#039;s reliance on incremental liability was not relevant to the statutory condition. The amount claimed did not exceed 8-1/3% of each employee&#039;s salary, but that factor did not alter the legal position. The earlier binding decision on the point governed the issue, so the assessee was held not entitled to the deduction and the reference was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:22:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62400" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (3) TMI 33 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23401</link>
      <description>Deduction under section 40A(7)(b)(ii) for gratuity-related liability was rejected because the Tribunal&#039;s reliance on incremental liability was not relevant to the statutory condition. The amount claimed did not exceed 8-1/3% of each employee&#039;s salary, but that factor did not alter the legal position. The earlier binding decision on the point governed the issue, so the assessee was held not entitled to the deduction and the reference was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>