<?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>2010 (6) TMI 771 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176905</link>
    <description>Write-off of a debt as irrecoverable in the accounts satisfied section 36(1)(vii), and proof of actual irrecoverability was not required after the statutory amendment, so the bad debt claim was allowed. Labour charges were supported by bills, audit records, cheque payments, TDS details and a plausible business explanation, so the disallowance was deleted. Gains from cancellation of foreign exchange forward contracts linked to import-export activity were held to be business income, not speculative income, because section 43(5) did not apply to business-related foreign exchange arrangements. Foreign travel expenditure remained partly disallowed because the assessee did not satisfactorily explain the use of foreign exchange, and that adverse finding was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:37:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411241" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 771 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176905</link>
      <description>Write-off of a debt as irrecoverable in the accounts satisfied section 36(1)(vii), and proof of actual irrecoverability was not required after the statutory amendment, so the bad debt claim was allowed. Labour charges were supported by bills, audit records, cheque payments, TDS details and a plausible business explanation, so the disallowance was deleted. Gains from cancellation of foreign exchange forward contracts linked to import-export activity were held to be business income, not speculative income, because section 43(5) did not apply to business-related foreign exchange arrangements. Foreign travel expenditure remained partly disallowed because the assessee did not satisfactorily explain the use of foreign exchange, and that adverse finding was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>