<?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>2009 (12) TMI 852 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161819</link>
    <description>Foreign travel expenditure supported by reasonable particulars was not disallowable, and Rule 6D did not apply to travel outside India. Rent for accommodation provided to deputed employees was treated as employment-related residential accommodation, not guest house expenditure, so sections 37(4) and 37(5) were inapplicable. Payments supported by cheque trail, TDS, audited accounts and surrounding evidence were not disallowed merely for incomplete invoices, and tax paid by the Indian concern under the foreign company agreement was not taxable under section 10(6A). Offshore supply income under a CIF contract completed outside India did not accrue in India, and rejection of regularly maintained books with estimation under Rule 10 was unwarranted. The domestic tax rate applied, but section 234B interest was not leviable where tax was fully subject to TDS.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 852 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161819</link>
      <description>Foreign travel expenditure supported by reasonable particulars was not disallowable, and Rule 6D did not apply to travel outside India. Rent for accommodation provided to deputed employees was treated as employment-related residential accommodation, not guest house expenditure, so sections 37(4) and 37(5) were inapplicable. Payments supported by cheque trail, TDS, audited accounts and surrounding evidence were not disallowed merely for incomplete invoices, and tax paid by the Indian concern under the foreign company agreement was not taxable under section 10(6A). Offshore supply income under a CIF contract completed outside India did not accrue in India, and rejection of regularly maintained books with estimation under Rule 10 was unwarranted. The domestic tax rate applied, but section 234B interest was not leviable where tax was fully subject to TDS.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>