<?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 656 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346598</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue&#039;s appeal, remitting certain issues back to the Assessing Officer for further examination while upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) on other issues. The exemption claimed under section 11 of the Income Tax Act was allowed, finding the explanations provided by the assessee reasonable. The validity of unsecured loans given to the Chairman was remitted for further verification. Canteen expenditure for providing free meals was deemed reasonable, and disallowance of certain advertisement expenses was upheld. Additional evidence was considered crucial and sent back for examination, while the violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2017 12:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 656 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346598</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue&#039;s appeal, remitting certain issues back to the Assessing Officer for further examination while upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) on other issues. The exemption claimed under section 11 of the Income Tax Act was allowed, finding the explanations provided by the assessee reasonable. The validity of unsecured loans given to the Chairman was remitted for further verification. Canteen expenditure for providing free meals was deemed reasonable, and disallowance of certain advertisement expenses was upheld. Additional evidence was considered crucial and sent back for examination, while the violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>