<?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 (11) TMI 465 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212522</link>
    <description>Reassessment after processing a return under section 143(1) was discussed as permissible without the same fresh-material requirement that applies to a completed assessment, where the audit report and surrounding material gave prima facie belief of escaped income. Lease registration and stamp duty expenses were treated as capital in nature because they were incurred to obtain lease rights and business premises, so they were not deductible as revenue expenditure. In transfer pricing, the assessee&#039;s comparables were accepted and selected TPO comparables were excluded for functional and transaction-based differences, leaving the margin within the tolerance range. Prior period EDP and communication expenses were allowed in the year tax was deducted and deposited, subject to verification against double deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2026 12:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185928" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 465 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212522</link>
      <description>Reassessment after processing a return under section 143(1) was discussed as permissible without the same fresh-material requirement that applies to a completed assessment, where the audit report and surrounding material gave prima facie belief of escaped income. Lease registration and stamp duty expenses were treated as capital in nature because they were incurred to obtain lease rights and business premises, so they were not deductible as revenue expenditure. In transfer pricing, the assessee&#039;s comparables were accepted and selected TPO comparables were excluded for functional and transaction-based differences, leaving the margin within the tolerance range. Prior period EDP and communication expenses were allowed in the year tax was deducted and deposited, subject to verification against double deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212522</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>