<?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>2014 (3) TMI 1029 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179251</link>
    <description>Expenditure on design and drawing was treated as revenue expenditure, and the fee paid to a foreign technician was also treated as revenue expenditure. The issues were stated to be covered against the Revenue in the assessee&#039;s own case for earlier years, so the appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 07:46:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417431" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 1029 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179251</link>
      <description>Expenditure on design and drawing was treated as revenue expenditure, and the fee paid to a foreign technician was also treated as revenue expenditure. The issues were stated to be covered against the Revenue in the assessee&#039;s own case for earlier years, so the appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>