<?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>2011 (7) TMI 122 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204990</link>
    <description>Interest on redeposited or capitalised interest from a foreign exchange asset was held outside the concessional regime under section 115H of the Income-tax Act. The court applied the phrase &quot;derived from&quot; in its ordinary sense and held that the statutory benefit extends only to investment income with a direct source and direct nexus to the specified foreign exchange asset. Interest earned on the original asset could qualify, but interest on reinvested interest did not retain that direct connection. The Revenue&#039;s view was therefore upheld, and the reassessed interest income was denied concessional treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 122 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204990</link>
      <description>Interest on redeposited or capitalised interest from a foreign exchange asset was held outside the concessional regime under section 115H of the Income-tax Act. The court applied the phrase &quot;derived from&quot; in its ordinary sense and held that the statutory benefit extends only to investment income with a direct source and direct nexus to the specified foreign exchange asset. Interest earned on the original asset could qualify, but interest on reinvested interest did not retain that direct connection. The Revenue&#039;s view was therefore upheld, and the reassessed interest income was denied concessional treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204990</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>