<?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>2016 (10) TMI 1110 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194701</link>
    <description>Loss from cancellation of matured forward contracts, where the contracts were integral or incidental to diamond export business, was treated as allowable business loss. The Court noted that the issue was already covered by binding precedent in favour of the assessee, so the proposed question did not raise a substantial question of law under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The matter was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 07:34:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 1110 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194701</link>
      <description>Loss from cancellation of matured forward contracts, where the contracts were integral or incidental to diamond export business, was treated as allowable business loss. The Court noted that the issue was already covered by binding precedent in favour of the assessee, so the proposed question did not raise a substantial question of law under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The matter was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194701</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>