<?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>2009 (2) TMI 62 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33027</link>
    <description>Expenditure incurred for setting up a new unit was treated as allowable revenue expenditure because the issue had already been covered by earlier decisions between the same parties for prior assessment years. Those binding decisions meant the controversy did not survive for reconsideration in the reference, and the referred question was answered in favour of the assessee. The operative result was that the expenditure was allowed as revenue in nature.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71662" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 62 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33027</link>
      <description>Expenditure incurred for setting up a new unit was treated as allowable revenue expenditure because the issue had already been covered by earlier decisions between the same parties for prior assessment years. Those binding decisions meant the controversy did not survive for reconsideration in the reference, and the referred question was answered in favour of the assessee. The operative result was that the expenditure was allowed as revenue in nature.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>