<?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 729 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290381</link>
    <description>Government securities were treated as distinct from bonds and debentures for the third proviso to section 48, so indexation on long-term capital gains was allowed. The Tribunal also held that section 50 does not bar set-off of brought forward long-term capital loss against short-term capital gains computed under that deeming provision. Disallowances under section 14A read with Rule 8D were deleted because the investments were made from own funds and the administrative disallowance was confined consistently with precedent. Alleged TDS default under section 194C did not justify disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) where the payments were purchases or lacked the necessary contractual element. Education cess was held outside section 40(a)(ii) and therefore deductible; the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2020 08:04:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 729 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290381</link>
      <description>Government securities were treated as distinct from bonds and debentures for the third proviso to section 48, so indexation on long-term capital gains was allowed. The Tribunal also held that section 50 does not bar set-off of brought forward long-term capital loss against short-term capital gains computed under that deeming provision. Disallowances under section 14A read with Rule 8D were deleted because the investments were made from own funds and the administrative disallowance was confined consistently with precedent. Alleged TDS default under section 194C did not justify disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) where the payments were purchases or lacked the necessary contractual element. Education cess was held outside section 40(a)(ii) and therefore deductible; the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>