<?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>1983 (1) TMI 135 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61255</link>
    <description>Purchase tax liability was deductible only when it became clearly enforceable and crystallised against the assessee. Because the assessee maintained mercantile accounts but was actively disputing the levy, no workable obligation to provide for or pay arose until the statutory demand was quantified, served, and the challenge failed. The principle applied was that, where more than one reasonable view exists on the timing of allowance of a statutory liability, the interpretation favourable to the assessee should be adopted. On the facts, the assessee debited and paid the amount in the year of crystallisation, so the deduction was allowable in that year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:45:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99702" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (1) TMI 135 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61255</link>
      <description>Purchase tax liability was deductible only when it became clearly enforceable and crystallised against the assessee. Because the assessee maintained mercantile accounts but was actively disputing the levy, no workable obligation to provide for or pay arose until the statutory demand was quantified, served, and the challenge failed. The principle applied was that, where more than one reasonable view exists on the timing of allowance of a statutory liability, the interpretation favourable to the assessee should be adopted. On the facts, the assessee debited and paid the amount in the year of crystallisation, so the deduction was allowable in that year.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61255</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>