<?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 (10) TMI 214 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203138</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a company facing disallowance of interest and administrative expenses under section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Tribunal rejected the retrospective application of Rule 8D and found that the disallowance of interest expenses was unsustainable, deleting it. The disallowance of common administrative expenses was restricted to a 5% disallowance of total exempt income. Other issues such as amortization of premium for leasehold land and depreciation claims on block assets were ruled against the appellant based on previous decisions. Overall, the appeal was partly allowed based on various grounds and issues raised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 May 2011 19:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176705" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 214 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203138</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a company facing disallowance of interest and administrative expenses under section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Tribunal rejected the retrospective application of Rule 8D and found that the disallowance of interest expenses was unsustainable, deleting it. The disallowance of common administrative expenses was restricted to a 5% disallowance of total exempt income. Other issues such as amortization of premium for leasehold land and depreciation claims on block assets were ruled against the appellant based on previous decisions. Overall, the appeal was partly allowed based on various grounds and issues raised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>