<?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>2007 (9) TMI 290 - ITAT BOMBAY-G</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59497</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions on key issues such as the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii), depreciation on premises acquired by shares, and prior period expenses. It dismissed several grounds raised by the assessee, including disallowances related to guest house, entertainment, and AGM expenses, based on precedents. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the assessee on the levy of interest under section 234C, referencing the SC&#039;s decision in CIT v. Kwality Biscuits Ltd. Other issues, like the amortized premium on leasehold expenses and classification of interest income, were dismissed as not pressed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2024 12:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97947" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 290 - ITAT BOMBAY-G</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59497</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions on key issues such as the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii), depreciation on premises acquired by shares, and prior period expenses. It dismissed several grounds raised by the assessee, including disallowances related to guest house, entertainment, and AGM expenses, based on precedents. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the assessee on the levy of interest under section 234C, referencing the SC&#039;s decision in CIT v. Kwality Biscuits Ltd. Other issues, like the amortized premium on leasehold expenses and classification of interest income, were dismissed as not pressed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>