<?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 615 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270823</link>
    <description>Section 14A read with Rule 8D required recorded dissatisfaction and a demonstrable nexus between expenditure and exempt income; where the assessee had already made a voluntary disallowance and no proximate nexus was shown, the addition was deleted. Leave encashment was remitted because the position under section 43B(f) was pending before the Supreme Court. Legal and professional fees, including auditors&#039; remuneration, were held not attributable on a proportionate basis to foreign management fee income where the expenses related mainly to trademark registration. Advances treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) were sent back for fresh examination in light of the lender&#039;s money-lending character and NBFC evidence, and actual rent was upheld for an actually let-out house property.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2016 07:55:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=413289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 615 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270823</link>
      <description>Section 14A read with Rule 8D required recorded dissatisfaction and a demonstrable nexus between expenditure and exempt income; where the assessee had already made a voluntary disallowance and no proximate nexus was shown, the addition was deleted. Leave encashment was remitted because the position under section 43B(f) was pending before the Supreme Court. Legal and professional fees, including auditors&#039; remuneration, were held not attributable on a proportionate basis to foreign management fee income where the expenses related mainly to trademark registration. Advances treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) were sent back for fresh examination in light of the lender&#039;s money-lending character and NBFC evidence, and actual rent was upheld for an actually let-out house property.</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=270823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>