<?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 (11) TMI 100 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202494</link>
    <description>The court held that 40% of the total expenditure should be treated as capital expenditure, as two out of five areas of the study related to capital expenditure. The Tribunal&#039;s decision to apportion 20% towards capital expenditure was modified, and the court sustained the addition of 40% of the total payment as capital expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 100 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202494</link>
      <description>The court held that 40% of the total expenditure should be treated as capital expenditure, as two out of five areas of the study related to capital expenditure. The Tribunal&#039;s decision to apportion 20% towards capital expenditure was modified, and the court sustained the addition of 40% of the total payment as capital expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>