https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66667 Interest on a bank loan raised to discharge estate duty on charged fixed deposits was deductible under section 57(iii) because the borrowing had a sufficient nexus with preserving the income-yielding asset and facilitating the earning of income; the disallowance was therefore wrong. Legal expenses incurred in defending a suit relating to house property were not allowable because deductions from house property income are limited to those expressly permitted by section 24, and the audit fee was also not deductible as it did not fall within the relevant statutory allowance. Relief was granted only on the interest expenditure, while the other deductions remained disallowed. en-us Wed, 21 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Mar 2011 14:59:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66667 Interest on a bank loan raised to discharge estate duty on charged fixed deposits was deductible under section 57(iii) because the borrowing had a sufficient nexus with preserving the income-yielding asset and facilitating the earning of income; the disallowance was therefore wrong. Legal expenses incurred in defending a suit relating to house property were not allowable because deductions from house property income are limited to those expressly permitted by section 24, and the audit fee was also not deductible as it did not fall within the relevant statutory allowance. Relief was granted only on the interest expenditure, while the other deductions remained disallowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 21 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66667