<?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>1998 (7) TMI 124 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65011</link>
    <description>Interest on borrowed funds was found disallowable to the extent the assessee made interest-free advances to shareholders and related concerns, because business had substantially ceased, major plant and machinery had been sold, and no sufficient interest-free funds were shown to cover the advances. Minimum guarantee power charges claimed after disconnection of electricity were also held not allowable as business expenditure, since the liability was disputed, no electricity was consumed or paid for, and continuation of business or restoration of supply was not established. The document states that both claims failed on the facts and that deductions were unavailable where the expenditure was not shown to be wholly and exclusively for business purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:39:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103451" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 124 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65011</link>
      <description>Interest on borrowed funds was found disallowable to the extent the assessee made interest-free advances to shareholders and related concerns, because business had substantially ceased, major plant and machinery had been sold, and no sufficient interest-free funds were shown to cover the advances. Minimum guarantee power charges claimed after disconnection of electricity were also held not allowable as business expenditure, since the liability was disputed, no electricity was consumed or paid for, and continuation of business or restoration of supply was not established. The document states that both claims failed on the facts and that deductions were unavailable where the expenditure was not shown to be wholly and exclusively for business purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65011</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>