<?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 390 - ITAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214819</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessees, holding that the amounts added under Section 68 were actually trade credits and should have been considered under Section 41(1). Consequently, the set-off of business loss against this income was permissible, and the CIT&#039;s order under Section 263 was set aside. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts, submissions, and relevant judicial precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188210" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 390 - ITAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214819</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessees, holding that the amounts added under Section 68 were actually trade credits and should have been considered under Section 41(1). Consequently, the set-off of business loss against this income was permissible, and the CIT&#039;s order under Section 263 was set aside. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts, submissions, and relevant judicial precedents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>