<?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 (7) TMI 840 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249804</link>
    <description>A one-time motor vehicle tax paid under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 for cars acquired for use in Maharashtra was treated as part of the actual cost of the vehicles, because it was a statutory precondition for bringing the capital asset into intended use and was akin to registration charges. Applying section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the amount was held to be attributable to making the cars workable rather than a deductible revenue outgoing under section 37(1). Section 12A of the State tax law was held to regulate payment and enforcement only, and the amended levy was not shown to be merely a substitute for annual revenue payments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2014 06:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=360486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 840 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249804</link>
      <description>A one-time motor vehicle tax paid under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 for cars acquired for use in Maharashtra was treated as part of the actual cost of the vehicles, because it was a statutory precondition for bringing the capital asset into intended use and was akin to registration charges. Applying section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the amount was held to be attributable to making the cars workable rather than a deductible revenue outgoing under section 37(1). Section 12A of the State tax law was held to regulate payment and enforcement only, and the amended levy was not shown to be merely a substitute for annual revenue payments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249804</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>