<?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>2017 (5) TMI 1690 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282488</link>
    <description>The court allowed the application concerning a 38-day delay in re-filing the appeal, condoning the delay. The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, involved grounds raised by the Revenue regarding Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion expenses, decided in favor of the Assessee. The second issue on provision for service coupons was found to lack a substantial question of law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2019 13:56:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=583109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1690 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282488</link>
      <description>The court allowed the application concerning a 38-day delay in re-filing the appeal, condoning the delay. The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, involved grounds raised by the Revenue regarding Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion expenses, decided in favor of the Assessee. The second issue on provision for service coupons was found to lack a substantial question of law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>