<?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>2019 (1) TMI 268 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373103</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the loss on the sale of shares of subsidiary companies is a business loss, not a capital loss. Emphasizing the principle of commercial expediency, it held that the investments were made to further the assessee&#039;s business objectives. Citing relevant judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that as long as investments are justified on the grounds of commercial expediency, resulting losses should be treated as business losses. The decision was rendered on 31.12.2018.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2019 12:23:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=551447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 268 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373103</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the loss on the sale of shares of subsidiary companies is a business loss, not a capital loss. Emphasizing the principle of commercial expediency, it held that the investments were made to further the assessee&#039;s business objectives. Citing relevant judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that as long as investments are justified on the grounds of commercial expediency, resulting losses should be treated as business losses. The decision was rendered on 31.12.2018.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>