<?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 (10) TMI 1769 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266494</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the appeal in part, granting deductions for expenditures related to the transfer of assets, traveling, conveyance, repairs, and maintenance. It also allowed the carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation. However, it denied the deduction for royalty payments due to a lack of evidence. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee on Issues 1, 2, 4, and 5, while ruling in favor of the Revenue on Issue 3. Issue 6 was deemed unnecessary to address.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:46:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1769 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266494</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the appeal in part, granting deductions for expenditures related to the transfer of assets, traveling, conveyance, repairs, and maintenance. It also allowed the carry forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation. However, it denied the deduction for royalty payments due to a lack of evidence. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee on Issues 1, 2, 4, and 5, while ruling in favor of the Revenue on Issue 3. Issue 6 was deemed unnecessary to address.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>