<?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 (4) TMI 1512 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379068</link>
    <description>VAT demand payments relating to earlier years were treated as deductible where the amount was paid before the due date for filing the return, satisfying section 43B for that part. The remaining balance was also allowed under section 37(1) because the records showed it had not been claimed in an earlier year and the liability had crystallised in the relevant year. On those facts, the disallowance was deleted and the expenditure was allowed as a business deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=568580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1512 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379068</link>
      <description>VAT demand payments relating to earlier years were treated as deductible where the amount was paid before the due date for filing the return, satisfying section 43B for that part. The remaining balance was also allowed under section 37(1) because the records showed it had not been claimed in an earlier year and the liability had crystallised in the relevant year. On those facts, the disallowance was deleted and the expenditure was allowed as a business deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379068</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>