<?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 (8) TMI 187 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346129</link>
    <description>The Court admitted the appeal solely on the substantial question of law raised regarding the consideration of strategic investments in group companies for computing disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that this issue raised a substantial question of law, while other issues, including the interpretation of section 14A in relation to dividend income on which dividend distribution tax had already been paid, were not considered due to settled precedents and procedural impermissibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2017 07:07:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 187 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346129</link>
      <description>The Court admitted the appeal solely on the substantial question of law raised regarding the consideration of strategic investments in group companies for computing disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that this issue raised a substantial question of law, while other issues, including the interpretation of section 14A in relation to dividend income on which dividend distribution tax had already been paid, were not considered due to settled precedents and procedural impermissibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>