<?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 (9) TMI 522 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237090</link>
    <description>ITAT Mumbai held that expenditure on acquisition of a unit was capital in nature, considering the nature and purpose of the expense rather than payment mode or amount. Development expenses for technical know-how were capital, not eligible for deduction under section 35. Premium on FCCBs was revenue expenditure, allowed in one assessment year only. Unutilized CENVAT credit issue was remanded for fresh consideration. Octroi incentive was held a capital receipt. Disallowance under section 40A(9) for club payments was remitted for recomputation. Adjustment under section 92CA(3) was not applicable as appellant was reimbursed for payments made on behalf of AE. Capital loss on sale of R&amp;D assets was disallowed to prevent double deduction. Consideration for non-compete covenant was revenue income under section 28(va). Disallowance under section 40A(ia) was reconsidered due to retrospective amendments. Weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) was allowed subject to DSIR approval. TDS credit disallowance under section 80IC was remanded for quantification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2025 13:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199497" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 522 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237090</link>
      <description>ITAT Mumbai held that expenditure on acquisition of a unit was capital in nature, considering the nature and purpose of the expense rather than payment mode or amount. Development expenses for technical know-how were capital, not eligible for deduction under section 35. Premium on FCCBs was revenue expenditure, allowed in one assessment year only. Unutilized CENVAT credit issue was remanded for fresh consideration. Octroi incentive was held a capital receipt. Disallowance under section 40A(9) for club payments was remitted for recomputation. Adjustment under section 92CA(3) was not applicable as appellant was reimbursed for payments made on behalf of AE. Capital loss on sale of R&amp;D assets was disallowed to prevent double deduction. Consideration for non-compete covenant was revenue income under section 28(va). Disallowance under section 40A(ia) was reconsidered due to retrospective amendments. Weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) was allowed subject to DSIR approval. TDS credit disallowance under section 80IC was remanded for quantification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237090</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>