<?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 (12) TMI 568 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269264</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing that Section 40(a)(ia) does not apply when the amount disallowed was not claimed as an expenditure for tax purposes. The Court found the Revenue&#039;s appeal unsustainable, citing legal provisions and factual consistency with a previous decision for a different assessment year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408496" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 568 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269264</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing that Section 40(a)(ia) does not apply when the amount disallowed was not claimed as an expenditure for tax purposes. The Court found the Revenue&#039;s appeal unsustainable, citing legal provisions and factual consistency with a previous decision for a different assessment year.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269264</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>