<?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>2000 (11) TMI 279 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57079</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal on the grounds that the disputed amount was no longer in contention and that the unpaid premium collected did not fall under the provisions of section 43B of the IT Act. The judgment clarified the applicability of section 43B and emphasized that the premium amount did not constitute income subject to disallowance under the said section.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Dec 2010 13:13:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=95541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 279 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57079</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal on the grounds that the disputed amount was no longer in contention and that the unpaid premium collected did not fall under the provisions of section 43B of the IT Act. The judgment clarified the applicability of section 43B and emphasized that the premium amount did not constitute income subject to disallowance under the said section.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>