<?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>2009 (1) TMI 107 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33008</link>
    <description>Belated employer provident fund contributions were examined under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in light of the amendment to section 43B. The Karnataka HC noted that an earlier Division Bench had already decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Applying that binding precedent, the court held that no substantial question of law survived for fresh consideration, and the appeal did not proceed on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71644" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 107 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33008</link>
      <description>Belated employer provident fund contributions were examined under section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in light of the amendment to section 43B. The Karnataka HC noted that an earlier Division Bench had already decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Applying that binding precedent, the court held that no substantial question of law survived for fresh consideration, and the appeal did not proceed on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33008</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>