<?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 119 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234961</link>
    <description>Common administrative and business expenses incurred across speculative and non-speculative trading activities may be apportioned on a fair and reasonable basis where the assessee does not prove a different allocation method. Here, the authorities and Tribunal accepted apportionment by turnover and profit, supported by the nature and volume of the business and the absence of contrary evidence. The court found no perversity in those concurrent factual findings and held that the application of section 73 and its Explanation did not give rise to any substantial question of law. The cited precedent did not assist the assessee, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2022 15:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197371" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 119 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234961</link>
      <description>Common administrative and business expenses incurred across speculative and non-speculative trading activities may be apportioned on a fair and reasonable basis where the assessee does not prove a different allocation method. Here, the authorities and Tribunal accepted apportionment by turnover and profit, supported by the nature and volume of the business and the absence of contrary evidence. The court found no perversity in those concurrent factual findings and held that the application of section 73 and its Explanation did not give rise to any substantial question of law. The cited precedent did not assist the assessee, and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234961</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>