<?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>2015 (10) TMI 2869 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463309</link>
    <description>Educational facilities provided for employees&#039; wards under a National Coal Wage Agreement were treated as revenue expenditure because the obligation was legally enforceable under section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the spending had been accepted in earlier years, and the assessee&#039;s objects did not exclude such welfare outlay. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for alleged contract payments without TDS deduction was also rejected because the record did not establish that the payment was actually made or that the statutory precondition for invoking the provision was satisfied. The concurrent factual findings disclosed no substantial question of law, so appellate interference was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=845278" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2869 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463309</link>
      <description>Educational facilities provided for employees&#039; wards under a National Coal Wage Agreement were treated as revenue expenditure because the obligation was legally enforceable under section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the spending had been accepted in earlier years, and the assessee&#039;s objects did not exclude such welfare outlay. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for alleged contract payments without TDS deduction was also rejected because the record did not establish that the payment was actually made or that the statutory precondition for invoking the provision was satisfied. The concurrent factual findings disclosed no substantial question of law, so appellate interference was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463309</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>