<?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 (7) TMI 394 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35084</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the expenses for the techno-economic feasibility report and feasibility study were revenue expenditures, not capital. The expenses were considered general business expenses aimed at enhancing existing operations, not for setting up new projects. The Tribunal and lower authorities found the expenses aligned with the business&#039;s core activities of infrastructure projects.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 394 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35084</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the expenses for the techno-economic feasibility report and feasibility study were revenue expenditures, not capital. The expenses were considered general business expenses aimed at enhancing existing operations, not for setting up new projects. The Tribunal and lower authorities found the expenses aligned with the business&#039;s core activities of infrastructure projects.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>