<?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>2020 (7) TMI 648 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396979</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to treat computer software expenses as revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure, based on the actual use of software and lack of enduring benefit. The Tribunal also allowed legal expenses related to the sale of capital assets, emphasizing that the nature of expenses should determine their classification, not the nature of the transaction. The Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, finding no errors in the Tribunal&#039;s conclusions and awarded no costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2020 18:18:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 648 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396979</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to treat computer software expenses as revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure, based on the actual use of software and lack of enduring benefit. The Tribunal also allowed legal expenses related to the sale of capital assets, emphasizing that the nature of expenses should determine their classification, not the nature of the transaction. The Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, finding no errors in the Tribunal&#039;s conclusions and awarded no costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396979</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>