<?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 (10) TMI 1399 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277677</link>
    <description>For section 14A computation, where interest-free own funds are sufficient, a presumption applies that investments are made from such funds, and under Rule 8D(2)(ii) only investments yielding exempt income during the year are to be considered; the disallowance was therefore restored for recomputation on that basis. The provision for leave encashment was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The penalty expenditure claim was not pressed. The Revenue&#039;s objections to inclusion of other income in section 10B deduction, as well as the allowance of additional depreciation and mark-to-market losses, were rejected because those matters had already been decided in the assessee&#039;s favour in earlier years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2018 05:55:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=547219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 1399 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277677</link>
      <description>For section 14A computation, where interest-free own funds are sufficient, a presumption applies that investments are made from such funds, and under Rule 8D(2)(ii) only investments yielding exempt income during the year are to be considered; the disallowance was therefore restored for recomputation on that basis. The provision for leave encashment was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The penalty expenditure claim was not pressed. The Revenue&#039;s objections to inclusion of other income in section 10B deduction, as well as the allowance of additional depreciation and mark-to-market losses, were rejected because those matters had already been decided in the assessee&#039;s favour in earlier years.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277677</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>