<?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>1981 (3) TMI 6 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28532</link>
    <description>The court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision on both issues. The provision for gratuity was allowed as an admissible deduction based on actuarial valuation, following established legal principles. Additionally, the interest on the borrowed capital was permitted as it was entirely used for business purposes during the relevant period. The Commissioner was directed to cover the assessee&#039;s costs, including counsel fees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:06:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67529" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (3) TMI 6 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28532</link>
      <description>The court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision on both issues. The provision for gratuity was allowed as an admissible deduction based on actuarial valuation, following established legal principles. Additionally, the interest on the borrowed capital was permitted as it was entirely used for business purposes during the relevant period. The Commissioner was directed to cover the assessee&#039;s costs, including counsel fees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>