<?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>2023 (11) TMI 936 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446045</link>
    <description>Investments funded from sufficient own funds did not justify a section 14A read with rule 8D disallowance, and the same adjustment could not be imported into book profit under section 115JB. Director&#039;s salary and handover facility expenses were treated as general business overheads, so capitalisation to work-in-progress was rejected and the s remained revenue in nature. Corporate guarantee commission was benchmarked on an interest-saving basis, with 0.3523% accepted. Depreciation on a temporary sample flat used as a site facility was allowed at 100%. Foreign exchange loss on settlement of monetary liabilities for materials was not capitalised to project cost and was allowable as revenue expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2023 07:42:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=732837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 936 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446045</link>
      <description>Investments funded from sufficient own funds did not justify a section 14A read with rule 8D disallowance, and the same adjustment could not be imported into book profit under section 115JB. Director&#039;s salary and handover facility expenses were treated as general business overheads, so capitalisation to work-in-progress was rejected and the s remained revenue in nature. Corporate guarantee commission was benchmarked on an interest-saving basis, with 0.3523% accepted. Depreciation on a temporary sample flat used as a site facility was allowed at 100%. Foreign exchange loss on settlement of monetary liabilities for materials was not capitalised to project cost and was allowable as revenue expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446045</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>