<?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>2000 (6) TMI 2 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12628</link>
    <description>Business tax paid in Thailand, being a levy on turnover rather than on income, was not hit by the disallowance in section 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The provision applies only to taxes on income, so the statutory bar did not extend to the business tax payment. On the material before the Court, Thai corporate tax was treated as a tax on income, but the separate business tax was not. The business tax was therefore deductible, and the assessee was entitled to the claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 16:47:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 2 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12628</link>
      <description>Business tax paid in Thailand, being a levy on turnover rather than on income, was not hit by the disallowance in section 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The provision applies only to taxes on income, so the statutory bar did not extend to the business tax payment. On the material before the Court, Thai corporate tax was treated as a tax on income, but the separate business tax was not. The business tax was therefore deductible, and the assessee was entitled to the claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12628</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>