<?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>2007 (2) TMI 669 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184815</link>
    <description>The appellant&#039;s claim for deduction of provisions made for Non Performing Assets was rejected by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which held that such provisions are predominantly capital in nature and not deductible as business losses. Despite following Reserve Bank of India directions, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the provisions were not allowable as business losses.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:34:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435664" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 669 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184815</link>
      <description>The appellant&#039;s claim for deduction of provisions made for Non Performing Assets was rejected by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which held that such provisions are predominantly capital in nature and not deductible as business losses. Despite following Reserve Bank of India directions, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the provisions were not allowable as business losses.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>