https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27637 The court upheld the decision to disallow the deduction of retrenchment compensation and notice pay claimed by the assessee, emphasizing that such liabilities do not qualify as business expenditures under section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment highlighted that these liabilities arise from the closure of the business, not its operation, and rejected the claim for partial business closure deduction due to lack of evidence. The court affirmed the Tribunal's ruling, emphasizing the importance of timing of liabilities and the requirement for concrete evidence to support claims in legal proceedings. en-us Mon, 23 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:33:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27637 The court upheld the decision to disallow the deduction of retrenchment compensation and notice pay claimed by the assessee, emphasizing that such liabilities do not qualify as business expenditures under section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment highlighted that these liabilities arise from the closure of the business, not its operation, and rejected the claim for partial business closure deduction due to lack of evidence. The court affirmed the Tribunal's ruling, emphasizing the importance of timing of liabilities and the requirement for concrete evidence to support claims in legal proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 23 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27637