<?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 (10) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206665</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision to tax the amount offered in the revised return, disallowing depreciation due to lack of evidence of asset purchase. However, the disallowance of late payment of provident fund was set aside in favor of the assessee. The Court appreciated the amicus curiae&#039;s assistance and disposed of the appeal without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (10) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206665</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision to tax the amount offered in the revised return, disallowing depreciation due to lack of evidence of asset purchase. However, the disallowance of late payment of provident fund was set aside in favor of the assessee. The Court appreciated the amicus curiae&#039;s assistance and disposed of the appeal without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>