<?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>2018 (10) TMI 1307 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369341</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the allowance of renovation and maintenance expenses as legitimate business expenditures under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the disallowance of retrenchment compensation was upheld due to the business continuity under the partnership firm. Additionally, expenses for advertisement and sales promotion were only allowed up to the date of the business sale.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2018 18:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=539510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1307 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369341</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the allowance of renovation and maintenance expenses as legitimate business expenditures under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the disallowance of retrenchment compensation was upheld due to the business continuity under the partnership firm. Additionally, expenses for advertisement and sales promotion were only allowed up to the date of the business sale.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369341</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>