<?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>2020 (4) TMI 911 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310513</link>
    <description>ITAT Delhi held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 35(2AB) for R&amp;amp;D expenses from 01.07.2008, the date of DSIR approval, rather than from 09.03.2009 when the approval letter was received. The tribunal deleted the addition under Section 14A as no interest-bearing funds were utilized for investments. Bad debts acquired from predecessor through demerger were allowed as deduction since corresponding amounts were offered to tax by the predecessor company. Training expenses for commercial vehicle business were held allowable in entirety as business expenditure under Section 37(1), rejecting AO&#039;s apportionment over three years. Revenue appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Oct 2023 20:19:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 911 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310513</link>
      <description>ITAT Delhi held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 35(2AB) for R&amp;amp;D expenses from 01.07.2008, the date of DSIR approval, rather than from 09.03.2009 when the approval letter was received. The tribunal deleted the addition under Section 14A as no interest-bearing funds were utilized for investments. Bad debts acquired from predecessor through demerger were allowed as deduction since corresponding amounts were offered to tax by the predecessor company. Training expenses for commercial vehicle business were held allowable in entirety as business expenditure under Section 37(1), rejecting AO&#039;s apportionment over three years. Revenue appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310513</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>