<?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>2010 (1) TMI 86 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75607</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding bad debts written off, discharge of guarantee obligations, and interest income, disallowing the claims due to lack of evidence or relevance to the assessee&#039;s business. However, the court allowed the deduction for legal expenses incurred for business expansion, considering it as revenue expenditure. The appeal was partially allowed, with costs imposed on the respondent for both appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 12:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113871" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 86 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75607</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding bad debts written off, discharge of guarantee obligations, and interest income, disallowing the claims due to lack of evidence or relevance to the assessee&#039;s business. However, the court allowed the deduction for legal expenses incurred for business expansion, considering it as revenue expenditure. The appeal was partially allowed, with costs imposed on the respondent for both appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75607</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>