<?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>2017 (5) TMI 1826 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456383</link>
    <description>ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple grounds. Software expenses for application software, upgradation charges, and license fees were held to be revenue expenditure as they were necessary for efficient business operations. Building repair expenses were confirmed as normal maintenance costs, not capital expenditure, as no new assets were created. The tribunal dismissed revenue&#039;s challenge on TDS non-deduction for clearing and forwarding charges, citing finality from previous assessment years. Transfer pricing adjustment for guarantee commission was rejected as the total borrowing cost remained below bank rates and the assessee&#039;s operating margins exceeded comparable companies.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:36:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=761029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1826 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456383</link>
      <description>ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple grounds. Software expenses for application software, upgradation charges, and license fees were held to be revenue expenditure as they were necessary for efficient business operations. Building repair expenses were confirmed as normal maintenance costs, not capital expenditure, as no new assets were created. The tribunal dismissed revenue&#039;s challenge on TDS non-deduction for clearing and forwarding charges, citing finality from previous assessment years. Transfer pricing adjustment for guarantee commission was rejected as the total borrowing cost remained below bank rates and the assessee&#039;s operating margins exceeded comparable companies.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456383</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>