<?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 1675 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379231</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision to allow the claim for liquidated damages of Rs. 6,96,00,000 paid for contract cancellation, determining that the liability accrued in the Assessment Year 2011-12, not in 2010-11. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the deferred revenue expenditure claimed by the Assessee, considering the tax deductions made during the relevant assessment years. The appeals were dismissed, and the Tribunal&#039;s order was found to be without any infirmity, raising no substantial question of law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 15:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=568915" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1675 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379231</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision to allow the claim for liquidated damages of Rs. 6,96,00,000 paid for contract cancellation, determining that the liability accrued in the Assessment Year 2011-12, not in 2010-11. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the deferred revenue expenditure claimed by the Assessee, considering the tax deductions made during the relevant assessment years. The appeals were dismissed, and the Tribunal&#039;s order was found to be without any infirmity, raising no substantial question of law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379231</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>