<?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>2015 (12) TMI 1787 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279180</link>
    <description>The Tribunal classified road transport subsidy and power tariff incentive as capital receipts, contrary to the Assessing Officer&#039;s view of them as revenue receipts. Interest paid on borrowings was allowed, sales tax incentive was sent back for further examination, and dividend distribution tax was excluded in computing book profits. The transfer to Debenture Redemption Reserve was also excluded. Expenditure on a power sub-station was upheld, while expenditure on temporary structures and stadium construction was considered revenue expenditure. The appeal was admitted on selected issues for further consideration, with varying outcomes based on factual findings and legal interpretations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2019 06:33:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=561738" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1787 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279180</link>
      <description>The Tribunal classified road transport subsidy and power tariff incentive as capital receipts, contrary to the Assessing Officer&#039;s view of them as revenue receipts. Interest paid on borrowings was allowed, sales tax incentive was sent back for further examination, and dividend distribution tax was excluded in computing book profits. The transfer to Debenture Redemption Reserve was also excluded. Expenditure on a power sub-station was upheld, while expenditure on temporary structures and stadium construction was considered revenue expenditure. The appeal was admitted on selected issues for further consideration, with varying outcomes based on factual findings and legal interpretations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>