<?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>2010 (10) TMI 1202 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286744</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal on both issues. It held that the security deposit written off as bad debts was allowable as a business loss, as it was adjusted against penalties. Additionally, the liability towards royalty and technical fees, despite being old, was not considered ceased as it was still shown in the books, thus not taxable under section 41(1).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:00:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606735" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 1202 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286744</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal on both issues. It held that the security deposit written off as bad debts was allowable as a business loss, as it was adjusted against penalties. Additionally, the liability towards royalty and technical fees, despite being old, was not considered ceased as it was still shown in the books, thus not taxable under section 41(1).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>