<?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 (8) TMI 644 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151758</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the taxability of an insurance claim under section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, stating that section 41(2) did not apply as depreciation was claimed under clause (ii) of section 32(1). The disallowance under sections 43B and 36(1)(va) for delayed payments towards provident fund and Employees State Insurance Scheme was partially upheld, limiting the disallowance to the amount paid beyond the grace period. However, the disallowance of pre-operative expenses under section 35D was reinstated. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, while the appeal of the Revenue was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 644 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151758</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the taxability of an insurance claim under section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, stating that section 41(2) did not apply as depreciation was claimed under clause (ii) of section 32(1). The disallowance under sections 43B and 36(1)(va) for delayed payments towards provident fund and Employees State Insurance Scheme was partially upheld, limiting the disallowance to the amount paid beyond the grace period. However, the disallowance of pre-operative expenses under section 35D was reinstated. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, while the appeal of the Revenue was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>