<?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>1978 (2) TMI 114 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62437</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, holding that the forfeiture of earnest money and security deposit constituted a business expense rather than capital expenditure. Citing relevant case law, the ITAT emphasized that such expenses were deductible as business expenses and directed the lower authorities to permit the deduction of Rs. 29,883.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:13:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (2) TMI 114 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62437</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, holding that the forfeiture of earnest money and security deposit constituted a business expense rather than capital expenditure. Citing relevant case law, the ITAT emphasized that such expenses were deductible as business expenses and directed the lower authorities to permit the deduction of Rs. 29,883.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>