<?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>2016 (12) TMI 1799 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284935</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the losses of Rs. 209.99 crores and Rs. 119.55 crores for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively, regarding the fall in value of investments held as stock-in-trade. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to reduce disallowances under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the respective years. Other issues such as expenditure on software, depreciation on LAN/WAN equipment, 100% depreciation on temporary wooden structures, and interest on overdue deposits were remanded for further verification by the AO. Both parties&#039; appeals were partly allowed based on legal precedents and factual analysis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2019 10:01:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=597601" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1799 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284935</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the losses of Rs. 209.99 crores and Rs. 119.55 crores for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively, regarding the fall in value of investments held as stock-in-trade. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to reduce disallowances under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the respective years. Other issues such as expenditure on software, depreciation on LAN/WAN equipment, 100% depreciation on temporary wooden structures, and interest on overdue deposits were remanded for further verification by the AO. Both parties&#039; appeals were partly allowed based on legal precedents and factual analysis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>