<?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>2022 (3) TMI 168 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419130</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, ruling that security deposits written off for business purposes should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal emphasized that the deposits were essential for business operations, distinguishing them from capital expenditure. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted, supporting the assessee&#039;s grounds of appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2022 08:55:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=671891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 168 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419130</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, ruling that security deposits written off for business purposes should be treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal emphasized that the deposits were essential for business operations, distinguishing them from capital expenditure. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted, supporting the assessee&#039;s grounds of appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419130</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>