thanks for sharing

Thanks a lot sir........ I didn't knew this rule............. Thanks for sharing.........

But the TATA TEA JUDGEMENT WAS OVERRULED BY EXPL.1 OF SEC 37(1)

Thanks sir for bringing the fact to our knowledge.

The decision given by the judge is very gud.Its right that ransom paid to save anyone's life is not the offence. This decision shows that how a right  interpretation can be derived.

The wrong intention of department is nullified by the court by giving a different definition to the provisions of section 364 A.

The refusal of deduction would have been the injustice to the Asseesee.

Thanks a lot again sir.

thnx for sharing ...that gud

IT IS NOT NECCESSARY THAT RANSOM AMOUNT IS TRUE TELL BY DEDUCTEE, IT ALSO TELL MAXIMUM AMOUNT, NO RECIEPT IN THAT TYPE OF CASES IS RECIEVED . HOW ;S THE AMOUNT JUSTIFIED.

Strange but rational.

thanks for sharing

@ sharad rai.

You believe the honourable judge ruluing in favour of the assessee would not have been even this diligent?

You must understand that an amicus curae was appointed in this case.

Sanath

amazing....

Thanks for information

well i knew that already ....

ya this was decided by high court (i think mum HC)

bt there is logic behind this....

as the employee is on duty.. its employeers responsiblity if ant think happen to them...

as we see in case of accident in factory or any kind of expenditure incured or given to employee for that. that also alowable exp. 

so i thnk HC take the right decision. n rather say good decision....

guyzz....i hav a doubt....!!

hum ise prove kaise karenge .......kya kiddnaper hume bill deha ???

hehehehhe !!

It's a very fair judgement.

Thank you Sir