Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Disallowance of interest difference between the rate paid on borrowed capital and the rate advanced to a wholly owned subsidiary is not warranted. The Supreme Court in S.A. Builders held that advancing funds by a holding company to its subsidiary for commercial expediency does not warrant disallowance of interest, even if not charged. The Delhi Tribunal in Moonrock Hospitality ruled that where funds were advanced to a wholly owned subsidiary for business purposes, no interest paid on borrowed funds could be disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Following these precedents, the Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds was permissible and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
Disallowance of interest difference between the rate paid on borrowed capital and the rate advanced to a wholly owned subsidiary is not warranted. The Supreme Court in S.A. Builders held that advancing funds by a holding company to its subsidiary for commercial expediency does not warrant disallowance of interest, even if not charged. The Delhi Tribunal in Moonrock Hospitality ruled that where funds were advanced to a wholly owned subsidiary for business purposes, no interest paid on borrowed funds could be disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Following these precedents, the Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds was permissible and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
