<?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>2018 (5) TMI 2013 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289797</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, a Private Limited Company engaged in pharmaceuticals, in cross appeals against the disallowance of expenditure on sales promotion for A.Y. 2012-13. The Tribunal found that the CBDT Circular was prospective and not applicable retrospectively for the year under consideration, citing various judicial precedents. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Deputy Commissioner was overturned, and the assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed while the revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2020 11:28:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=620277" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 2013 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289797</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, a Private Limited Company engaged in pharmaceuticals, in cross appeals against the disallowance of expenditure on sales promotion for A.Y. 2012-13. The Tribunal found that the CBDT Circular was prospective and not applicable retrospectively for the year under consideration, citing various judicial precedents. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Deputy Commissioner was overturned, and the assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed while the revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>