<?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>2008 (8) TMI 429 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69459</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remitting the issues of AMC charges and software expenses back to the CIT(A) for further examination. The Tribunal allowed the claims for mutual fund launch and promotion expenses, stating they were contractually and regulatorily justified business expenses. Grounds challenging the procedural fairness and legal aspects of the CIT(A)&#039;s order were rejected as they were not pursued by the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107829" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 429 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69459</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remitting the issues of AMC charges and software expenses back to the CIT(A) for further examination. The Tribunal allowed the claims for mutual fund launch and promotion expenses, stating they were contractually and regulatorily justified business expenses. Grounds challenging the procedural fairness and legal aspects of the CIT(A)&#039;s order were rejected as they were not pursued by the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>