<?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>2012 (6) TMI 814 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178617</link>
    <description>The appeal by the revenue challenging the disallowance of expenses on VSAT, leaseline, depository, and transaction charges paid to the stock exchange for the assessment year 2007-08 was dismissed. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, citing that stock exchanges do not provide managerial or technical services. The High Court upheld the deletion of disallowance for VSAT and leaseline charges, stating they were reimbursement charges. Transaction charges were considered fees for technical services but were not upheld due to no tax deduction in previous years. Depository charges were allowed as normal business expenditure. The order of CIT(A) was confirmed by the Tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415923" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 814 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178617</link>
      <description>The appeal by the revenue challenging the disallowance of expenses on VSAT, leaseline, depository, and transaction charges paid to the stock exchange for the assessment year 2007-08 was dismissed. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, citing that stock exchanges do not provide managerial or technical services. The High Court upheld the deletion of disallowance for VSAT and leaseline charges, stating they were reimbursement charges. Transaction charges were considered fees for technical services but were not upheld due to no tax deduction in previous years. Depository charges were allowed as normal business expenditure. The order of CIT(A) was confirmed by the Tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178617</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>