<?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>2013 (3) TMI 538 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221772</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision that the deduction under Section 80M of the Income Tax Act should be based on adjusting interest on loans raised for earning dividend income. It emphasized that only interest related to investments generating dividend income should be considered in calculating net dividend income, in line with Sections 36 and 57 of the Act. The judgment highlighted the necessity of aligning interest expenses with dividend-generating investments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:31:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 538 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221772</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision that the deduction under Section 80M of the Income Tax Act should be based on adjusting interest on loans raised for earning dividend income. It emphasized that only interest related to investments generating dividend income should be considered in calculating net dividend income, in line with Sections 36 and 57 of the Act. The judgment highlighted the necessity of aligning interest expenses with dividend-generating investments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>