<?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 1414 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374249</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision allowing a sum of Rs. 5.17 crores as a capital loss, rejecting the Assessing Officer&#039;s classification as a business loss. The Court also supported the Tribunal&#039;s deletion of disallowance under Section 80IA and the adjustment of depreciation of Rs. 1.07 crores, finding no error in the Tribunal&#039;s decisions. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating no question of law arose, and the Assessing Officer needed to verify the facts before granting relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2019 17:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=555456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 1414 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374249</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision allowing a sum of Rs. 5.17 crores as a capital loss, rejecting the Assessing Officer&#039;s classification as a business loss. The Court also supported the Tribunal&#039;s deletion of disallowance under Section 80IA and the adjustment of depreciation of Rs. 1.07 crores, finding no error in the Tribunal&#039;s decisions. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating no question of law arose, and the Assessing Officer needed to verify the facts before granting relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374249</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>