<?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>2008 (9) TMI 1002 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277837</link>
    <description>The Bombay HC dismissed the appeal, affirming that compensation for voluntary retirement is revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act and not capital in nature, following SC precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2018 09:48:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=549262" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 1002 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277837</link>
      <description>The Bombay HC dismissed the appeal, affirming that compensation for voluntary retirement is revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act and not capital in nature, following SC precedent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277837</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>