<?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>2015 (6) TMI 1084 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187645</link>
    <description>The ITAT Chennai note records that depreciation on windmills was treated as allowable on the assessee&#039;s earlier-favourable precedent, FCCB issue es were characterised as revenue expenditure for obtaining borrowed funds, and preference share issue expenses were allowed where the industrial undertaking and qualifying conditions were found satisfied. It also states that Rule 8D could not be applied to assessment year 2007-08, though a reasonable section 14A disallowance could still be made for exempt income. Payments to non-residents were not hit by section 40(a)(i) where not chargeable to tax in India, while the Dubai branch remittance issue was remanded for fresh examination under section 9 and the territorial nexus principle.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2016 18:37:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 1084 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187645</link>
      <description>The ITAT Chennai note records that depreciation on windmills was treated as allowable on the assessee&#039;s earlier-favourable precedent, FCCB issue es were characterised as revenue expenditure for obtaining borrowed funds, and preference share issue expenses were allowed where the industrial undertaking and qualifying conditions were found satisfied. It also states that Rule 8D could not be applied to assessment year 2007-08, though a reasonable section 14A disallowance could still be made for exempt income. Payments to non-residents were not hit by section 40(a)(i) where not chargeable to tax in India, while the Dubai branch remittance issue was remanded for fresh examination under section 9 and the territorial nexus principle.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>