<?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>2008 (6) TMI 609 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185874</link>
    <description>A pure finding of fact, including concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, does not by itself give rise to a maintainable question of law in appeal. The conclusion that the losses were business losses was based on the facts found below, so no legal issue arose for appellate consideration. Where concurrent factual findings exist, no question of law is generated on that issue, and the appeal fails.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2016 11:11:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 609 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185874</link>
      <description>A pure finding of fact, including concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, does not by itself give rise to a maintainable question of law in appeal. The conclusion that the losses were business losses was based on the facts found below, so no legal issue arose for appellate consideration. Where concurrent factual findings exist, no question of law is generated on that issue, and the appeal fails.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>