<?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 (3) TMI 398 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376377</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue. The gain on cancellation of forwarding contracts was deemed a capital receipt as per Supreme Court precedents. The Assessing Officer&#039;s order was found not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, as the gain was correctly treated as capital. The Court concluded no legal question arose, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2019 11:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=561944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 398 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376377</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue. The gain on cancellation of forwarding contracts was deemed a capital receipt as per Supreme Court precedents. The Assessing Officer&#039;s order was found not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, as the gain was correctly treated as capital. The Court concluded no legal question arose, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376377</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>