<?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 (11) TMI 1364 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351485</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the treatment of extension fees as capital expenditure but set aside the rejection of books of account and the consequent addition to income. The detailed analysis and explanations provided by the assessee were found satisfactory, leading to the deletion of the additional taxable income estimated by the AO. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Nov 2017 09:20:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497658" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1364 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351485</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the treatment of extension fees as capital expenditure but set aside the rejection of books of account and the consequent addition to income. The detailed analysis and explanations provided by the assessee were found satisfactory, leading to the deletion of the additional taxable income estimated by the AO. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351485</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>