<?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 (11) TMI 407 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267598</link>
    <description>Guest house expenses for assessment year 1999-2000 were not disallowable on the footing of section 37(4), because that statutory bar had already ceased to operate from 1 April 1988. Payments to Mastercard International and Visa Card International without tax withholding were not treated as disallowable under section 40(a)(i), the matter being governed by earlier accepted precedent and the principle of consistency, read with article 26(3) of the Indo-US DTAA. Notional loss on unmatured foreign exchange contracts was likewise treated as allowable, the issue being covered by binding precedent. On each point, no substantial question of law arose in appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2026 13:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 407 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267598</link>
      <description>Guest house expenses for assessment year 1999-2000 were not disallowable on the footing of section 37(4), because that statutory bar had already ceased to operate from 1 April 1988. Payments to Mastercard International and Visa Card International without tax withholding were not treated as disallowable under section 40(a)(i), the matter being governed by earlier accepted precedent and the principle of consistency, read with article 26(3) of the Indo-US DTAA. Notional loss on unmatured foreign exchange contracts was likewise treated as allowable, the issue being covered by binding precedent. On each point, no substantial question of law arose in appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>