<?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>2016 (1) TMI 251 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270459</link>
    <description>Section 10B deduction was confined to export proceeds received in convertible foreign exchange within the prescribed period, and a later RBI circular was treated as prospective, so the restriction was upheld. Section 14A read with Rule 8D required fresh examination on the existing factual record concerning dividend income from a subsidiary, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was held inapplicable where tax had in fact been deducted and remitted, even if at a lower rate, so the addition was deleted. Expenditure on interior decoration and related refurbishing works was treated as revenue expenditure, as it did not create a new asset or enduring capital advantage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2016 23:44:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412218" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 251 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270459</link>
      <description>Section 10B deduction was confined to export proceeds received in convertible foreign exchange within the prescribed period, and a later RBI circular was treated as prospective, so the restriction was upheld. Section 14A read with Rule 8D required fresh examination on the existing factual record concerning dividend income from a subsidiary, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was held inapplicable where tax had in fact been deducted and remitted, even if at a lower rate, so the addition was deleted. Expenditure on interior decoration and related refurbishing works was treated as revenue expenditure, as it did not create a new asset or enduring capital advantage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>