<?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>2017 (12) TMI 1815 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298102</link>
    <description>Year-end mark-to-market loss on outstanding equity derivatives, valued at the lower of cost or market value, was treated as an ascertained trading loss and allowed as a deduction; the disallowance was deleted. Commission paid to working directors, being part of the remuneration package and in substance salary, was not hit by section 40(a)(ia) because that provision does not apply to salary payments; the Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 Oct 2021 16:28:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=658221" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1815 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298102</link>
      <description>Year-end mark-to-market loss on outstanding equity derivatives, valued at the lower of cost or market value, was treated as an ascertained trading loss and allowed as a deduction; the disallowance was deleted. Commission paid to working directors, being part of the remuneration package and in substance salary, was not hit by section 40(a)(ia) because that provision does not apply to salary payments; the Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>