<?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 (6) TMI 250 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260325</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) and ITAT, dismissing the appeal on both issues. The disallowed management fee was accepted as genuine business expenditure, emphasizing commercial expediency. Regarding the advertising expenditure, relief was granted based on legal precedents, with the court finding no substantial question of law to overturn the decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2015 07:27:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=387103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 250 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260325</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) and ITAT, dismissing the appeal on both issues. The disallowed management fee was accepted as genuine business expenditure, emphasizing commercial expediency. Regarding the advertising expenditure, relief was granted based on legal precedents, with the court finding no substantial question of law to overturn the decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>