<?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>2011 (12) TMI 765 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301622</link>
    <description>Interest on borrowed funds was not disallowable where interest-free advances to related concerns were shown to be commercially expedient and business-linked, so the interest claim was allowed. Replacement of machine components was treated as revenue expenditure because the parts were only components of existing machinery and no new asset or enduring capital advantage arose, so the disallowance was deleted. Deduction under section 80IB could not be denied merely because it was omitted from the original return where a revised return was filed in time and the audit report was produced during assessment, so the deduction was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:15:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=675836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 765 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301622</link>
      <description>Interest on borrowed funds was not disallowable where interest-free advances to related concerns were shown to be commercially expedient and business-linked, so the interest claim was allowed. Replacement of machine components was treated as revenue expenditure because the parts were only components of existing machinery and no new asset or enduring capital advantage arose, so the disallowance was deleted. Deduction under section 80IB could not be denied merely because it was omitted from the original return where a revised return was filed in time and the audit report was produced during assessment, so the deduction was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301622</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>