<?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>2010 (11) TMI 1072 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273130</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to disallow expenditure of Rs. 12,55,869, holding that expenses necessary for maintaining the company&#039;s existence should be allowed as deductions, even if no business activities were conducted during the year. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of business operations in a particular year does not imply the cessation of business, citing relevant case law. Consequently, the disallowance was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed on 24th November 2010.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2018 10:07:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 1072 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273130</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to disallow expenditure of Rs. 12,55,869, holding that expenses necessary for maintaining the company&#039;s existence should be allowed as deductions, even if no business activities were conducted during the year. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of business operations in a particular year does not imply the cessation of business, citing relevant case law. Consequently, the disallowance was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed on 24th November 2010.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273130</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>