<?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>1984 (3) TMI 164 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65970</link>
    <description>A retrospective amendment can justify rectification where the original assessment was made without applying the law as retrospectively declared, so a mistake apparent from the record may be corrected under section 154. Dividend income for deduction purposes must be computed under the head &quot;Income from other sources&quot;, with only expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred to earn that dividend allowed as a deduction. On the facts, the allowable expenditure was limited to Rs. 3,000 per year, and further apportionment of business expenditure against the dividend income was not warranted because that expenditure had already been absorbed in computing business income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:33:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=104406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (3) TMI 164 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65970</link>
      <description>A retrospective amendment can justify rectification where the original assessment was made without applying the law as retrospectively declared, so a mistake apparent from the record may be corrected under section 154. Dividend income for deduction purposes must be computed under the head &quot;Income from other sources&quot;, with only expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred to earn that dividend allowed as a deduction. On the facts, the allowable expenditure was limited to Rs. 3,000 per year, and further apportionment of business expenditure against the dividend income was not warranted because that expenditure had already been absorbed in computing business income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>