<?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>2004 (4) TMI 33 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10868</link>
    <description>In an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, the High Court held that concurrent factual findings on the genuineness of acquisition and lease of a skimmer machine, and the related depreciation claim, were findings of fact not giving rise to a substantial question of law, so those findings were left undisturbed. On foreign travel expenditure, however, the record lacked a clear factual finding on whether the travel of the vice-chairman&#039;s wife was for the assessee&#039;s business, and the matter was remitted for fresh factual determination. The court reiterated that interference is not warranted with possible findings based on evidence, but remand is appropriate where a material factual controversy remains unresolved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 33 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10868</link>
      <description>In an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, the High Court held that concurrent factual findings on the genuineness of acquisition and lease of a skimmer machine, and the related depreciation claim, were findings of fact not giving rise to a substantial question of law, so those findings were left undisturbed. On foreign travel expenditure, however, the record lacked a clear factual finding on whether the travel of the vice-chairman&#039;s wife was for the assessee&#039;s business, and the matter was remitted for fresh factual determination. The court reiterated that interference is not warranted with possible findings based on evidence, but remand is appropriate where a material factual controversy remains unresolved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>