<?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>1992 (6) TMI 44 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56935</link>
    <description>Premium paid to LIC for insurance cover against liabilities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was treated as an actual business outgo, not a mere provision for gratuity. Section 40A(7) disallows provisions for gratuity, but its bar does not extend to actual payments covered by the statutory exception in section 40A(7)(b)(i). On that basis, the premium was held allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1), and the disallowance was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 14:02:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=95397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (6) TMI 44 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56935</link>
      <description>Premium paid to LIC for insurance cover against liabilities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was treated as an actual business outgo, not a mere provision for gratuity. Section 40A(7) disallows provisions for gratuity, but its bar does not extend to actual payments covered by the statutory exception in section 40A(7)(b)(i). On that basis, the premium was held allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1), and the disallowance was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>