<?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>2017 (3) TMI 526 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340023</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision that the payment of processing fees to a related party was a revenue expenditure allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT found the expenses were commercially prudent, necessary for business operations, and not colorable devices to reduce tax liability. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the relief granted to the assessee by the CIT(A).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Mar 2017 20:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 526 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340023</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision that the payment of processing fees to a related party was a revenue expenditure allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT found the expenses were commercially prudent, necessary for business operations, and not colorable devices to reduce tax liability. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the relief granted to the assessee by the CIT(A).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340023</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>