<?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>2001 (3) TMI 33 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13980</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the amount in question could not be claimed as a business loss as it was not proven to be a trading loss. The Tribunal&#039;s decision to reject the claim was upheld, emphasizing the requirement for proper evidence to differentiate between trading and capital losses. The court found no basis to support the appellant&#039;s argument, distinguishing precedents based on the specific nature of the transactions and lack of evidence in the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:57:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=52980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 33 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13980</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the amount in question could not be claimed as a business loss as it was not proven to be a trading loss. The Tribunal&#039;s decision to reject the claim was upheld, emphasizing the requirement for proper evidence to differentiate between trading and capital losses. The court found no basis to support the appellant&#039;s argument, distinguishing precedents based on the specific nature of the transactions and lack of evidence in the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>