<?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>1980 (8) TMI 66 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36399</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the provision for pension of Rs. 1,31,279 was an allowable deduction in computing the company&#039;s profits for the assessment year 1972-73. The Court emphasized that the provision was for retired employees, actuarially computed, and thus represented a definite liability. Citing previous cases, the Court highlighted the acceptance of provisions for gratuity based on actuarial valuation as legitimate deductions. The decision favored the company, directing each party to bear its own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:29:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (8) TMI 66 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36399</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the provision for pension of Rs. 1,31,279 was an allowable deduction in computing the company&#039;s profits for the assessment year 1972-73. The Court emphasized that the provision was for retired employees, actuarially computed, and thus represented a definite liability. Citing previous cases, the Court highlighted the acceptance of provisions for gratuity based on actuarial valuation as legitimate deductions. The decision favored the company, directing each party to bear its own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36399</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>