<?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>2017 (3) TMI 1861 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297672</link>
    <description>Where employees&#039; contributions or related amounts were deposited on or before the due date for filing the return under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the factual finding on that timing was concurrent, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose. On those facts, the amount was not liable to disallowance under Section 43B or Section 36(1)(va). The court followed its earlier ruling on the same issue and dismissed the appeal against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 25 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2021 09:20:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=655976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1861 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297672</link>
      <description>Where employees&#039; contributions or related amounts were deposited on or before the due date for filing the return under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the factual finding on that timing was concurrent, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose. On those facts, the amount was not liable to disallowance under Section 43B or Section 36(1)(va). The court followed its earlier ruling on the same issue and dismissed the appeal against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 25 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>