<?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 (4) TMI 102 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62224</link>
    <description>A loss return filed after the section 139(3) time limit was still accepted because CBDT instructions for the relevant year permitted consideration of delayed loss returns within the assessment window, so the loss could be carried forward. Interest paid by a statutory road transport corporation on capital contributed by the Central and State Governments was treated as a statutory outgoing rather than interest on borrowed capital, making section 36(1)(iii) inapplicable and the deduction allowable under section 37. On those facts, the Commissioner&#039;s revision under section 263 was not sustainable because no real prejudice to the Revenue was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:32:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100670" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 102 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62224</link>
      <description>A loss return filed after the section 139(3) time limit was still accepted because CBDT instructions for the relevant year permitted consideration of delayed loss returns within the assessment window, so the loss could be carried forward. Interest paid by a statutory road transport corporation on capital contributed by the Central and State Governments was treated as a statutory outgoing rather than interest on borrowed capital, making section 36(1)(iii) inapplicable and the deduction allowable under section 37. On those facts, the Commissioner&#039;s revision under section 263 was not sustainable because no real prejudice to the Revenue was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>