<?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 (4) TMI 802 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326688</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed liabilities deductions claimed by the assessee on a pro-rata basis for three years under appeal, directing the AO to allow appropriate deductions. As a result, WTA 51 was partly allowed, and WTA 52 and 53 were allowed. The decision was based on the Tribunal&#039;s interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents supporting pro-rata deduction of debts, despite the unavailability of specific records.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:47:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=424755" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 802 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326688</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed liabilities deductions claimed by the assessee on a pro-rata basis for three years under appeal, directing the AO to allow appropriate deductions. As a result, WTA 51 was partly allowed, and WTA 52 and 53 were allowed. The decision was based on the Tribunal&#039;s interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents supporting pro-rata deduction of debts, despite the unavailability of specific records.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326688</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>