<?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 791 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209789</link>
    <description>Staff cost directly attributable to Indian branch operations was allowable, while remaining head office expenses required factual verification and were not wholly restricted under section 44C. Year-end revaluation of outstanding foreign exchange contracts was treated as income or loss of the relevant accounting period, so the revaluation profit was taxable. Interest on tax-free bonds was exempt on the gross amount, and no disallowance under section 14A was permitted because no nexus with borrowed funds was established. Diminution in the value of investments was allowable where the accounts and banking guidelines supported valuation at cost or market value, whichever was lower. Interest paid for shortfall in prescribed balances was compensatory in character and allowable as business expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2026 14:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183233" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 791 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209789</link>
      <description>Staff cost directly attributable to Indian branch operations was allowable, while remaining head office expenses required factual verification and were not wholly restricted under section 44C. Year-end revaluation of outstanding foreign exchange contracts was treated as income or loss of the relevant accounting period, so the revaluation profit was taxable. Interest on tax-free bonds was exempt on the gross amount, and no disallowance under section 14A was permitted because no nexus with borrowed funds was established. Diminution in the value of investments was allowable where the accounts and banking guidelines supported valuation at cost or market value, whichever was lower. Interest paid for shortfall in prescribed balances was compensatory in character and allowable as business expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209789</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>