<?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 (11) TMI 36 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29130</link>
    <description>The High Court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding the deductibility of the provision made for gratuity and recognized it as an admissible business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1971-72. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the provision for gratuity should be treated as a permissible deduction in computing business profits, based on actuarial valuation, in line with established legal principles. The Department&#039;s contention that such provisions must fall under section 36(1)(v) was rejected, with the Court emphasizing that actuarially ascertained gratuity liabilities are to be considered under section 37.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:39:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68127" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (11) TMI 36 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29130</link>
      <description>The High Court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding the deductibility of the provision made for gratuity and recognized it as an admissible business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1971-72. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the provision for gratuity should be treated as a permissible deduction in computing business profits, based on actuarial valuation, in line with established legal principles. The Department&#039;s contention that such provisions must fall under section 36(1)(v) was rejected, with the Court emphasizing that actuarially ascertained gratuity liabilities are to be considered under section 37.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29130</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>