<?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>1973 (6) TMI 17 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39599</link>
    <description>A properly created provision for staff and labour bonus, referable to the relevant accounting year and not inflated, was deductible even though not actually disbursed in that year, because the liability had been accrued for the year in question. Deduction under section 80E of the Central Income-tax Act was also available in proceedings under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, following binding precedent. Both issues were resolved against the Revenue, and the assessment as modified by the Tribunal was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:51:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78145" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (6) TMI 17 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39599</link>
      <description>A properly created provision for staff and labour bonus, referable to the relevant accounting year and not inflated, was deductible even though not actually disbursed in that year, because the liability had been accrued for the year in question. Deduction under section 80E of the Central Income-tax Act was also available in proceedings under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, following binding precedent. Both issues were resolved against the Revenue, and the assessment as modified by the Tribunal was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39599</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>