<?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>2011 (4) TMI 504 - ITAT, New Delhi</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206438</link>
    <description>In an NBFC financing business, loss on sale of repossessed assets was treated as a business deduction because the assets were current assets held in the ordinary course of recovery and not capital assets. Interest on sticky loans was not brought to tax on accrual basis since collectability was doubtful and RBI prudential norms on income recognition for NPAs governed the real income position. Disallowance of part of advertisement and business promotion expenditure was also rejected because the spend was incurred for the assessee&#039;s business, and any incidental benefit to the Maruti brand owner did not negate business purpose or commercial expediency.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 07:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179927" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 504 - ITAT, New Delhi</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206438</link>
      <description>In an NBFC financing business, loss on sale of repossessed assets was treated as a business deduction because the assets were current assets held in the ordinary course of recovery and not capital assets. Interest on sticky loans was not brought to tax on accrual basis since collectability was doubtful and RBI prudential norms on income recognition for NPAs governed the real income position. Disallowance of part of advertisement and business promotion expenditure was also rejected because the spend was incurred for the assessee&#039;s business, and any incidental benefit to the Maruti brand owner did not negate business purpose or commercial expediency.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206438</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>