<?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 (12) TMI 1048 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352779</link>
    <description>Alleged bogus purchases may justify addition only to the extent of the embedded profit element where surrounding records indicate business-related transactions; here the addition was restricted to 15%. Partner remuneration disallowance must follow the amended section 40(b) computation, and only the limited excess was sustained. An addition under section 41(1) requires proof of remission or cessation of liability in the relevant year; absent effective enquiry, it was deleted. Expenditure on pollution control equipment was sent back for fresh examination after denial of proper hearing. A penalty for unauthorized occupation was treated as penal in nature and disallowed as revenue expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500711" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1048 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352779</link>
      <description>Alleged bogus purchases may justify addition only to the extent of the embedded profit element where surrounding records indicate business-related transactions; here the addition was restricted to 15%. Partner remuneration disallowance must follow the amended section 40(b) computation, and only the limited excess was sustained. An addition under section 41(1) requires proof of remission or cessation of liability in the relevant year; absent effective enquiry, it was deleted. Expenditure on pollution control equipment was sent back for fresh examination after denial of proper hearing. A penalty for unauthorized occupation was treated as penal in nature and disallowed as revenue expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>