<?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>2025 (2) TMI 1732 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467906</link>
    <description>Disallowance of performance linked incentive expenditure based only on absence of supporting documents required fresh verification, as the claim was treated as employee-related business expenditure with tax deducted at source under section 192; the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after giving the assessee an opportunity. Expenditure on design and development of an e-commerce portal was capital in nature because it created an enduring business advantage, and depreciation at 60% was allowable on that treatment. The tax-effect argument did not change the capital character of the outlay. The appeal succeeded only on the incentive expense issue and failed on the portal development issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 20:27:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895778" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1732 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467906</link>
      <description>Disallowance of performance linked incentive expenditure based only on absence of supporting documents required fresh verification, as the claim was treated as employee-related business expenditure with tax deducted at source under section 192; the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after giving the assessee an opportunity. Expenditure on design and development of an e-commerce portal was capital in nature because it created an enduring business advantage, and depreciation at 60% was allowable on that treatment. The tax-effect argument did not change the capital character of the outlay. The appeal succeeded only on the incentive expense issue and failed on the portal development issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>