<?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>1987 (9) TMI 32 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25184</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the amount of Rs. 1,07,957 deposited in a post office savings account as per a Supreme Court directive was not taxable as income for the assessment year 1975-76. The court emphasized that the assessee did not have control over the money, and the right to receive the amount was pending adjudication by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the amount could not be considered as income that had accrued or arisen to the assessee, as required under the Income-tax Act, 1961.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:27:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64182" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (9) TMI 32 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25184</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the amount of Rs. 1,07,957 deposited in a post office savings account as per a Supreme Court directive was not taxable as income for the assessment year 1975-76. The court emphasized that the assessee did not have control over the money, and the right to receive the amount was pending adjudication by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the amount could not be considered as income that had accrued or arisen to the assessee, as required under the Income-tax Act, 1961.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>