<?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>2013 (3) TMI 218 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221452</link>
    <description>The ITAT partly allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, sending back the stock loss issue for fresh adjudication due to inadequately examined evidence by the authorities. However, the disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) for TDS deduction and the treatment of electricity charges as revenue expenditure were upheld, with the ITAT supporting the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions in these regards.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:05:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194806" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 218 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221452</link>
      <description>The ITAT partly allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, sending back the stock loss issue for fresh adjudication due to inadequately examined evidence by the authorities. However, the disallowances under section 40(a)(ia) for TDS deduction and the treatment of electricity charges as revenue expenditure were upheld, with the ITAT supporting the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions in these regards.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>