<?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>2004 (6) TMI 589 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127076</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed several grounds in favor of the assessee, including disallowance u/r 6B of I.T. Rules, deduction for proportionate premium on debentures, and calculation of depreciation on assets with central subsidy. The issue of deduction u/s 32AB on interest income was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The deletion of addition due to concessional interest rate on advances to a subsidiary was upheld, emphasizing business expediency. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground regarding deduction u/s 80HHD for services to foreign tourists, affirming that business trips are included. The appeal by the Revenue was partially allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163954" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 589 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127076</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed several grounds in favor of the assessee, including disallowance u/r 6B of I.T. Rules, deduction for proportionate premium on debentures, and calculation of depreciation on assets with central subsidy. The issue of deduction u/s 32AB on interest income was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The deletion of addition due to concessional interest rate on advances to a subsidiary was upheld, emphasizing business expediency. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground regarding deduction u/s 80HHD for services to foreign tourists, affirming that business trips are included. The appeal by the Revenue was partially allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>