<?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 (11) TMI 731 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400976</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that exchange fluctuation loss on business advances is deductible under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, contrary to the Assessing Officer&#039;s disallowance. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal deemed the loss as a revenue expenditure, aligning with decisions of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court. The disallowed amount of Rs. 2.59 crores was deleted, and the appeal by the assessee was upheld, emphasizing the allowance of such losses as business expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2022 16:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 731 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400976</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that exchange fluctuation loss on business advances is deductible under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, contrary to the Assessing Officer&#039;s disallowance. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal deemed the loss as a revenue expenditure, aligning with decisions of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court. The disallowed amount of Rs. 2.59 crores was deleted, and the appeal by the assessee was upheld, emphasizing the allowance of such losses as business expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400976</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>