<?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>1995 (8) TMI 96 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64503</link>
    <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the amounts credited to Delhi Administration and other Government Economic Services were not the income of the assessee but were diverted by an overriding title before reaching the assessee. The ITAT also noted that the retrospective fixation of profit margin by the Delhi Administration constituted a diversion of income. The creation of Transportation Infrastructure Utilisation Fund was deemed allowable only when expenditure was actually incurred. The issue of disallowance of interest on borrowed money was set aside for reconsideration, and the disallowance under section 40A(3) was upheld due to lack of evidence of exceptional circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:10:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (8) TMI 96 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64503</link>
      <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the amounts credited to Delhi Administration and other Government Economic Services were not the income of the assessee but were diverted by an overriding title before reaching the assessee. The ITAT also noted that the retrospective fixation of profit margin by the Delhi Administration constituted a diversion of income. The creation of Transportation Infrastructure Utilisation Fund was deemed allowable only when expenditure was actually incurred. The issue of disallowance of interest on borrowed money was set aside for reconsideration, and the disallowance under section 40A(3) was upheld due to lack of evidence of exceptional circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>