<?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 (7) TMI 843 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152774</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal by upholding the treatment of software development expenses as capital expenditure, rejecting the alternative claim under section 35(1)(iv), and directing the AO to verify and allow the deduction under section 80HHE if conditions were met. The addition of Rs. 2,71,773 for transferring employees was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2023 17:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169811" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 843 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152774</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal by upholding the treatment of software development expenses as capital expenditure, rejecting the alternative claim under section 35(1)(iv), and directing the AO to verify and allow the deduction under section 80HHE if conditions were met. The addition of Rs. 2,71,773 for transferring employees was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152774</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>