<?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>2008 (2) TMI 398 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33745</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have allowed deduction of issue management expenses by relying only on the rule of consistency without examining the nature and allowability of the expenditure on merits. The Court said the character of the expenditure had to be determined before granting deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that this raised a substantial question of law under Section 260-A. The High Court judgment was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 398 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33745</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have allowed deduction of issue management expenses by relying only on the rule of consistency without examining the nature and allowability of the expenditure on merits. The Court said the character of the expenditure had to be determined before granting deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that this raised a substantial question of law under Section 260-A. The High Court judgment was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>