<?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 (7) TMI 68 - ITAT, Ahmedabad</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214493</link>
    <description>Interest on borrowed funds was disallowed where advances to sister concerns were not shown to be for commercial expediency, but relief was retained for the advance proved to be for business consideration. MAT exclusion for a sick industrial company under section 115JB was left for fresh adjudication because the effective date of sickness was not clearly established on the record. Deferred tax liability was upheld as an add-back in book profit computation under the retrospective amendment. Process loss was accepted on the facts, and the challenge to its deletion failed. Rejection of books and estimation of gross profit were also upheld because the accounts were not audited and supporting material was lacking.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 68 - ITAT, Ahmedabad</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214493</link>
      <description>Interest on borrowed funds was disallowed where advances to sister concerns were not shown to be for commercial expediency, but relief was retained for the advance proved to be for business consideration. MAT exclusion for a sick industrial company under section 115JB was left for fresh adjudication because the effective date of sickness was not clearly established on the record. Deferred tax liability was upheld as an add-back in book profit computation under the retrospective amendment. Process loss was accepted on the facts, and the challenge to its deletion failed. Rejection of books and estimation of gross profit were also upheld because the accounts were not audited and supporting material was lacking.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>