<?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 (11) TMI 1853 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283803</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that the government incentive for exploring new markets is a capital receipt, not income under the Income-tax Act. Regarding the construction expenditure on a building in leasehold land, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for further examination to determine whether the costs should be treated as revenue or capital expenditure, emphasizing the importance of legal precedents in making such determinations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:49:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=590612" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1853 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283803</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that the government incentive for exploring new markets is a capital receipt, not income under the Income-tax Act. Regarding the construction expenditure on a building in leasehold land, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for further examination to determine whether the costs should be treated as revenue or capital expenditure, emphasizing the importance of legal precedents in making such determinations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283803</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>