<?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>2011 (3) TMI 1678 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185532</link>
    <description>The assessee&#039;s appeal regarding the deduction u/s 80IA for Earth Stations was dismissed. However, the appeal on the disallowance u/s 43B for Gratuity Provision was allowed. The additional ground on repairs and maintenance expenditure was not pressed. The revenue&#039;s appeal on foreign exchange fluctuation expenditure was allowed, while the appeal on prior period expenses was dismissed. The revenue&#039;s appeal on depreciation of undersea cables was dismissed, as was the appeal on capitalization of foreign travel expenditure. The revenue&#039;s appeal on the amortization of leasehold land was also dismissed. Both parties&#039; appeals were allowed in part.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:30:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438532" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 1678 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185532</link>
      <description>The assessee&#039;s appeal regarding the deduction u/s 80IA for Earth Stations was dismissed. However, the appeal on the disallowance u/s 43B for Gratuity Provision was allowed. The additional ground on repairs and maintenance expenditure was not pressed. The revenue&#039;s appeal on foreign exchange fluctuation expenditure was allowed, while the appeal on prior period expenses was dismissed. The revenue&#039;s appeal on depreciation of undersea cables was dismissed, as was the appeal on capitalization of foreign travel expenditure. The revenue&#039;s appeal on the amortization of leasehold land was also dismissed. Both parties&#039; appeals were allowed in part.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>