<?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 (7) TMI 62 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234904</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision, allowing the expenses incurred by the assessee during a temporary business slowdown. The revenue&#039;s appeal, challenging the allowance of expenses after business activity ceased, was dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized that the business slowdown was temporary, not permanent cessation, and supported the Commissioner&#039;s findings based on legal precedents. The expenses were deemed allowable, considering the subsequent resumption of substantial business activities in later years. The Tribunal concluded that the expenses during the lull period were justified, rejecting the revenue&#039;s arguments and upholding the Commissioner&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2013 08:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 62 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234904</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision, allowing the expenses incurred by the assessee during a temporary business slowdown. The revenue&#039;s appeal, challenging the allowance of expenses after business activity ceased, was dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized that the business slowdown was temporary, not permanent cessation, and supported the Commissioner&#039;s findings based on legal precedents. The expenses were deemed allowable, considering the subsequent resumption of substantial business activities in later years. The Tribunal concluded that the expenses during the lull period were justified, rejecting the revenue&#039;s arguments and upholding the Commissioner&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>