<?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 (7) TMI 212 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345100</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the disallowance of rent expenses and provision for &quot;Mark to Market&quot; loss for the assessment year 2007-2008 in two appeals. The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the rent expenses were justified as they were used for business purposes, and the &quot;Mark to Market&quot; loss was not speculative. The appeals were dismissed without costs as no substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jul 2017 07:41:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=480008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 212 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345100</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the disallowance of rent expenses and provision for &quot;Mark to Market&quot; loss for the assessment year 2007-2008 in two appeals. The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the rent expenses were justified as they were used for business purposes, and the &quot;Mark to Market&quot; loss was not speculative. The appeals were dismissed without costs as no substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345100</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>