<?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>2024 (12) TMI 34 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762454</link>
    <description>ITAT Delhi dismissed revenue&#039;s appeal regarding disallowance of business expenses under Section 37. The AO had disallowed certain expenses, but CIT(A) deleted the addition after finding expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. ITAT upheld CIT(A)&#039;s decision, noting the assessee company paid tax at MAT rate with no tax evasion. The tribunal found CIT(A) correctly applied legal principles regarding allowability of business expenditure and saw no grounds to interfere with the findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2024 08:53:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=780115" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 34 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762454</link>
      <description>ITAT Delhi dismissed revenue&#039;s appeal regarding disallowance of business expenses under Section 37. The AO had disallowed certain expenses, but CIT(A) deleted the addition after finding expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. ITAT upheld CIT(A)&#039;s decision, noting the assessee company paid tax at MAT rate with no tax evasion. The tribunal found CIT(A) correctly applied legal principles regarding allowability of business expenditure and saw no grounds to interfere with the findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762454</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>