<?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 (7) TMI 318 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235160</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision that notional interest on a security deposit should not be added to the agreed rent for determining the fair rent of the property. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the order of remand did not require interference, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s argument that notional interest should be considered in computing the annual lease value under Section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 318 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235160</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision that notional interest on a security deposit should not be added to the agreed rent for determining the fair rent of the property. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the order of remand did not require interference, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s argument that notional interest should be considered in computing the annual lease value under Section 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>