<?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>2022 (10) TMI 1238 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313468</link>
    <description>The ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal against revision proceedings under section 263. The tribunal held that Voluntary Retirement Scheme expenditure was allowable as revenue expenditure based on commercial expediency, following the jurisdictional HC decision in Bhor Industries Ltd. Regarding TDS non-deduction on payments to Visa and Mastercard, the tribunal found no default since payees declared income and paid taxes under MAP provisions of India-USA DTAA. The deduction under section 36(1)(viia) was allowed based on opening balance provisions from earlier years. The tribunal also ruled that provisions under sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) represent ascertained liabilities, not unascertained ones, and that section 115JA provisions were not applicable to banking companies prior to Finance Act 2012 amendments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:37:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=750201" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 1238 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313468</link>
      <description>The ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal against revision proceedings under section 263. The tribunal held that Voluntary Retirement Scheme expenditure was allowable as revenue expenditure based on commercial expediency, following the jurisdictional HC decision in Bhor Industries Ltd. Regarding TDS non-deduction on payments to Visa and Mastercard, the tribunal found no default since payees declared income and paid taxes under MAP provisions of India-USA DTAA. The deduction under section 36(1)(viia) was allowed based on opening balance provisions from earlier years. The tribunal also ruled that provisions under sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) represent ascertained liabilities, not unascertained ones, and that section 115JA provisions were not applicable to banking companies prior to Finance Act 2012 amendments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>