<?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>2012 (4) TMI 237 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212038</link>
    <description>Payments made to implement profit-improvement measures were revenue expenditure because they improved existing business efficiency without creating a new capital asset, new business unit, or new technical know-how; book treatment as capital did not alter the true character of the outlay, so the disallowance failed. Loss from dividend stripping could not be ignored in computing book profit under section 115JB because MAT is a self-contained code and the restriction in section 94(7) for normal-tax computation could not be imported into the book-profit calculation. The Tribunal&#039;s view on these substantive issues was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 237 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212038</link>
      <description>Payments made to implement profit-improvement measures were revenue expenditure because they improved existing business efficiency without creating a new capital asset, new business unit, or new technical know-how; book treatment as capital did not alter the true character of the outlay, so the disallowance failed. Loss from dividend stripping could not be ignored in computing book profit under section 115JB because MAT is a self-contained code and the restriction in section 94(7) for normal-tax computation could not be imported into the book-profit calculation. The Tribunal&#039;s view on these substantive issues was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212038</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>