<?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>2007 (11) TMI 437 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120815</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee on the disallowance of hedging expenses as speculative loss and the deduction under section 80HHC. The Tribunal remanded the issue of loan addition back to the Assessing Officer for further examination, as the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient reasons for not admitting additional evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:55:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 437 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120815</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee on the disallowance of hedging expenses as speculative loss and the deduction under section 80HHC. The Tribunal remanded the issue of loan addition back to the Assessing Officer for further examination, as the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient reasons for not admitting additional evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>