<?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>1995 (1) TMI 104 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56143</link>
    <description>Under the mercantile system, only a liability that has actually accrued and crystallised on proved facts is deductible. ITAT Ahmedabad held that a provision for bonus payable to bidi workers was not allowable because the assessee did not establish the factual basis, worker-wise details, or that the cited precedent automatically created a bonus liability under the Payment of Bonus Act. It also disallowed the claim for wages relating to damaged bidies because the assessee failed to show an ascertained, enforceable, and properly computed liability in the relevant year. Both claims were therefore sustained as disallowances in favour of Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:32:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=94605" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (1) TMI 104 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56143</link>
      <description>Under the mercantile system, only a liability that has actually accrued and crystallised on proved facts is deductible. ITAT Ahmedabad held that a provision for bonus payable to bidi workers was not allowable because the assessee did not establish the factual basis, worker-wise details, or that the cited precedent automatically created a bonus liability under the Payment of Bonus Act. It also disallowed the claim for wages relating to damaged bidies because the assessee failed to show an ascertained, enforceable, and properly computed liability in the relevant year. Both claims were therefore sustained as disallowances in favour of Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>