<?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>2015 (5) TMI 122 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259248</link>
    <description>Securities transaction tax collected by a broker from clients and separately recovered through billing was treated as outside the disallowance provision invoked. Losses from error trades required fresh factual verification because the claim had not been examined on merits. Expenditure relating to exempt income was disallowed under section 14A and rule 8D in line with binding precedent. Stock-exchange transaction charges were governed by the applicable tax-deduction framework under the Kotak Securities principle, supporting the assessee&#039;s claim. As the remaining findings were factual or controlled by precedent, no independent substantial question of law arose and the appeal was rejected entirely.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2016 16:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383812" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 122 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259248</link>
      <description>Securities transaction tax collected by a broker from clients and separately recovered through billing was treated as outside the disallowance provision invoked. Losses from error trades required fresh factual verification because the claim had not been examined on merits. Expenditure relating to exempt income was disallowed under section 14A and rule 8D in line with binding precedent. Stock-exchange transaction charges were governed by the applicable tax-deduction framework under the Kotak Securities principle, supporting the assessee&#039;s claim. As the remaining findings were factual or controlled by precedent, no independent substantial question of law arose and the appeal was rejected entirely.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259248</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>