<?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 (1) TMI 385 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33980</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to treat the payment to SEBI as a revenue expenditure, emphasizing consistency in treatment among similarly situated assessees to prevent discrimination. The Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal without directly addressing the substantial question of law raised, noting that if other banking companies treated similar payments as revenue expenditure, there was no justification for treating the assessee differently.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 385 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33980</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to treat the payment to SEBI as a revenue expenditure, emphasizing consistency in treatment among similarly situated assessees to prevent discrimination. The Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal without directly addressing the substantial question of law raised, noting that if other banking companies treated similar payments as revenue expenditure, there was no justification for treating the assessee differently.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>