<?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>1985 (9) TMI 121 - ITAT BOMBAY-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59175</link>
    <description>The judgment focused on the dispute regarding the addition of fees receivable from a company for sample testing and laboratory use. The appellant&#039;s argument to change the method of accounting from accrual basis to cash basis for this transaction was rejected. The court emphasized that income should be taxed based on the consistent accounting method followed. The concept of real income for taxation was debated, with authorities highlighting that the method of accounting determines tax treatment. Legal precedents were extensively analyzed, supporting the decision to add the outstanding fees to the appellant&#039;s income. The appeal was partially allowed, but the addition of fees was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 13:43:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (9) TMI 121 - ITAT BOMBAY-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59175</link>
      <description>The judgment focused on the dispute regarding the addition of fees receivable from a company for sample testing and laboratory use. The appellant&#039;s argument to change the method of accounting from accrual basis to cash basis for this transaction was rejected. The court emphasized that income should be taxed based on the consistent accounting method followed. The concept of real income for taxation was debated, with authorities highlighting that the method of accounting determines tax treatment. Legal precedents were extensively analyzed, supporting the decision to add the outstanding fees to the appellant&#039;s income. The appeal was partially allowed, but the addition of fees was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59175</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>