<?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>2008 (9) TMI 357 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35102</link>
    <description>Provision for bad or doubtful debts is not to be added back while computing book profits under section 115JA where binding precedent treats such provision as outside the adjustment base, and the Tribunal&#039;s deletion of the addition was upheld. Expenditure provision for expatriate cost was deductible in the year of accrual because the liability arose under a valid contract and the assessee followed the mercantile system; Reserve Bank of India approval for remittance, obtained later, affected only payment abroad and did not postpone accrual. The distinction from cases involving an absolute statutory bar was inapplicable, and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73708" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 357 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35102</link>
      <description>Provision for bad or doubtful debts is not to be added back while computing book profits under section 115JA where binding precedent treats such provision as outside the adjustment base, and the Tribunal&#039;s deletion of the addition was upheld. Expenditure provision for expatriate cost was deductible in the year of accrual because the liability arose under a valid contract and the assessee followed the mercantile system; Reserve Bank of India approval for remittance, obtained later, affected only payment abroad and did not postpone accrual. The distinction from cases involving an absolute statutory bar was inapplicable, and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>