<?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>2023 (2) TMI 196 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433681</link>
    <description>Interest capitalised in work-in-progress and not claimed as a revenue deduction was treated as outside section 43B disallowance. Contributions to a statutory provident fund under the Provident Fund Act, 1925 were held to fall outside the recognised provident fund disallowance framework, so the related employee and employer additions were deleted. Prior period expenses were allowable where the liability crystallised during the year, even under the mercantile system. Provision for fuel cost adjustment, fixed cost adjustment and similar regulated tariff items was treated as an accrued liability, not a contingent or unascertained liability, and the addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2023 15:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=704010" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (2) TMI 196 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433681</link>
      <description>Interest capitalised in work-in-progress and not claimed as a revenue deduction was treated as outside section 43B disallowance. Contributions to a statutory provident fund under the Provident Fund Act, 1925 were held to fall outside the recognised provident fund disallowance framework, so the related employee and employer additions were deleted. Prior period expenses were allowable where the liability crystallised during the year, even under the mercantile system. Provision for fuel cost adjustment, fixed cost adjustment and similar regulated tariff items was treated as an accrued liability, not a contingent or unascertained liability, and the addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>