<?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 (10) TMI 125 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217172</link>
    <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that expenses incurred for brand building were revenue, not capital expenditure. The tribunal emphasized the importance of proper inquiries by the AO and upheld the decision based on correct legal provisions application and the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 13:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190550" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 125 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217172</link>
      <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that expenses incurred for brand building were revenue, not capital expenditure. The tribunal emphasized the importance of proper inquiries by the AO and upheld the decision based on correct legal provisions application and the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217172</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>