<?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 (11) TMI 485 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212542</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the respondent-assessee, holding that rental income should be taxed under &#039;income from house property&#039; and interest income from fixed deposits qualifies as business income for claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized the importance of legal interpretations and precedents in tax cases, referencing relevant judgments to support its decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 485 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212542</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the respondent-assessee, holding that rental income should be taxed under &#039;income from house property&#039; and interest income from fixed deposits qualifies as business income for claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized the importance of legal interpretations and precedents in tax cases, referencing relevant judgments to support its decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212542</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>