<?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 (5) TMI 855 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327874</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the assessee&#039;s treatment of the Rs. 12.92 crores received from M/s Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada as Long-term Capital Gains, considering it a payment towards goodwill. The disallowance of bad debts claimed by the assessee was partially allowed as a normal business loss. The disallowance of the claim relating to TDS certificates was set aside, allowing it as a normal business loss. The disallowance of share issue expenses claimed under Section 35D was confirmed. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal and dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions where justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 May 2016 12:39:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 855 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327874</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the assessee&#039;s treatment of the Rs. 12.92 crores received from M/s Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada as Long-term Capital Gains, considering it a payment towards goodwill. The disallowance of bad debts claimed by the assessee was partially allowed as a normal business loss. The disallowance of the claim relating to TDS certificates was set aside, allowing it as a normal business loss. The disallowance of share issue expenses claimed under Section 35D was confirmed. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal and dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions where justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>