<?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 (10) TMI 674 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186066</link>
    <description>Income from commercial exploitation of a business centre, including facilities and allied services, is treated as business income, while interest on surplus funds invested in inter-corporate deposits, fixed deposits and mutual funds, and dividend income, is assessable as income from other sources. Claims for co-sponsorship fees, bad debts written off, loss on assignment of debts, and rates and taxes on unused land were disallowed because they were either not wholly for business, not shown to satisfy statutory conditions, or were in the capital field / non-genuine on the facts. VRS expenditure was allowable in the prescribed manner under section 35DDA, and consequential business-centre expenses and depreciation followed the business character of the activity. The alternative set-off claim against unabsorbed depreciation was remitted for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 18:07:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440286" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (10) TMI 674 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186066</link>
      <description>Income from commercial exploitation of a business centre, including facilities and allied services, is treated as business income, while interest on surplus funds invested in inter-corporate deposits, fixed deposits and mutual funds, and dividend income, is assessable as income from other sources. Claims for co-sponsorship fees, bad debts written off, loss on assignment of debts, and rates and taxes on unused land were disallowed because they were either not wholly for business, not shown to satisfy statutory conditions, or were in the capital field / non-genuine on the facts. VRS expenditure was allowable in the prescribed manner under section 35DDA, and consequential business-centre expenses and depreciation followed the business character of the activity. The alternative set-off claim against unabsorbed depreciation was remitted for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>