<?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>1987 (4) TMI 101 - ITAT BOMBAY-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58589</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the refund of Rs. 32,80,110 received by the assessee from the Excise Department should not be considered as income under Section 41(1) for the assessment year 1983-84. The liability for excise duty had not ceased definitively, as the refund was conditional pending ongoing litigation. The Tribunal overturned the CIT (Appeals) decision, ruling in favor of the assessee, who had treated the amount as a liability in the Balance Sheet and agreed to declare it as income once the litigation concluded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:30:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (4) TMI 101 - ITAT BOMBAY-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58589</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the refund of Rs. 32,80,110 received by the assessee from the Excise Department should not be considered as income under Section 41(1) for the assessment year 1983-84. The liability for excise duty had not ceased definitively, as the refund was conditional pending ongoing litigation. The Tribunal overturned the CIT (Appeals) decision, ruling in favor of the assessee, who had treated the amount as a liability in the Balance Sheet and agreed to declare it as income once the litigation concluded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>