<?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>1984 (12) TMI 51 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26861</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that actuarially calculated gratuity liabilities under the Company&#039;s Gratuity Scheme were deductible business expenditures. The court emphasized that statutory liability did not preclude employers from having their own gratuity schemes, and such liabilities were deductible based on commercial expediency and business continuity. The decision supported the deductibility of the sum representing actuarial valuation of gratuity for the assessment year 1972-73.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:11:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65859" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (12) TMI 51 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26861</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that actuarially calculated gratuity liabilities under the Company&#039;s Gratuity Scheme were deductible business expenditures. The court emphasized that statutory liability did not preclude employers from having their own gratuity schemes, and such liabilities were deductible based on commercial expediency and business continuity. The decision supported the deductibility of the sum representing actuarial valuation of gratuity for the assessment year 1972-73.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26861</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>