<?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 (9) TMI 95 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24031</link>
    <description>The Bombay High Court held that the provision for gratuity amounting to Rs. 43,584 was a legitimate deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1972-73. The court ruled that the entire liability, regardless of the period, was attributable to the current year as it arose from a scheme implemented in the previous year. Therefore, the liability based on actuarial valuation was allowed as a deduction, citing relevant case law. The court ruled in favor of the assessee with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:05:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 95 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24031</link>
      <description>The Bombay High Court held that the provision for gratuity amounting to Rs. 43,584 was a legitimate deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1972-73. The court ruled that the entire liability, regardless of the period, was attributable to the current year as it arose from a scheme implemented in the previous year. Therefore, the liability based on actuarial valuation was allowed as a deduction, citing relevant case law. The court ruled in favor of the assessee with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>