<?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>2014 (5) TMI 385 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247458</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of lease rental income as business income, emphasizing the allowance of relevant expenditures. It rejected the Revenue&#039;s challenge on the admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46A. The Tribunal dismissed contentions regarding the disallowance of share application money, noting it was part of separate proceedings. Concerning the set off of losses not raised by the assessee, the Tribunal deemed the issue infructuous. Consequently, all Revenue appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 May 2014 09:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355517" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 385 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247458</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of lease rental income as business income, emphasizing the allowance of relevant expenditures. It rejected the Revenue&#039;s challenge on the admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46A. The Tribunal dismissed contentions regarding the disallowance of share application money, noting it was part of separate proceedings. Concerning the set off of losses not raised by the assessee, the Tribunal deemed the issue infructuous. Consequently, all Revenue appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>