<?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 (6) TMI 43 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234218</link>
    <description>Karnataka HC ruled on a bank&#039;s tax assessment involving multiple issues. The court upheld that 70% of securities held as permanent investment per RBI guidelines cannot be treated as stock-in-trade for claiming business losses, rejecting the assessee&#039;s claim. On bad debts, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination following Supreme Court precedent in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Entertainment expenditure deductions were denied as they constituted entertainment expenses under Section 37(2). However, the court favored the assessee on dividend income deductions under Section 80M, finding revenue failed to demonstrate actual expenditure incurred for earning dividend income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:01:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196631" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 43 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234218</link>
      <description>Karnataka HC ruled on a bank&#039;s tax assessment involving multiple issues. The court upheld that 70% of securities held as permanent investment per RBI guidelines cannot be treated as stock-in-trade for claiming business losses, rejecting the assessee&#039;s claim. On bad debts, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination following Supreme Court precedent in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Entertainment expenditure deductions were denied as they constituted entertainment expenses under Section 37(2). However, the court favored the assessee on dividend income deductions under Section 80M, finding revenue failed to demonstrate actual expenditure incurred for earning dividend income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>