<?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 (2) TMI 424 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271719</link>
    <description>The ITAT Delhi dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions on both issues. The additions on account of processing and consortium fee paid to the bank and stamp duty charges for debenture certificates were deleted. The ITAT emphasized the distinction between capital and revenue expenditures based on legal precedents, upholding the deductibility of the expenses incurred by the assessee company.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2016 00:45:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 424 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271719</link>
      <description>The ITAT Delhi dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions on both issues. The additions on account of processing and consortium fee paid to the bank and stamp duty charges for debenture certificates were deleted. The ITAT emphasized the distinction between capital and revenue expenditures based on legal precedents, upholding the deductibility of the expenses incurred by the assessee company.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271719</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>