<?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>1988 (9) TMI 80 - ITAT BOMBAY-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58795</link>
    <description>Excise duty claimed only on the basis of mere show cause notices was not deductible under the mercantile system because no crystallised legal liability had arisen. Incremental gratuity liability actuarially valued was also disallowed under the governing statutory bar and Supreme Court authority. Exchange loss on remittance of a foreign currency loan was treated as capital in nature, so it was not allowable as revenue expenditure; the alternative claim for investment allowance also failed because the amount did not satisfy the statutory conditions. Expenditure on a transit house was sustained as guest house expenditure, and the assessee failed on all substantive grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 18:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (9) TMI 80 - ITAT BOMBAY-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58795</link>
      <description>Excise duty claimed only on the basis of mere show cause notices was not deductible under the mercantile system because no crystallised legal liability had arisen. Incremental gratuity liability actuarially valued was also disallowed under the governing statutory bar and Supreme Court authority. Exchange loss on remittance of a foreign currency loan was treated as capital in nature, so it was not allowable as revenue expenditure; the alternative claim for investment allowance also failed because the amount did not satisfy the statutory conditions. Expenditure on a transit house was sustained as guest house expenditure, and the assessee failed on all substantive grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>