<?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>2014 (4) TMI 279 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245808</link>
    <description>The appeal by the appellant-assessee, a hotel business company, challenging deductions claimed under section 80HHD and interest levied under section 234C for the assessment year 1997-98 was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the previous court decision on the section 80HHD claim, citing a pending apex court consideration. The Tribunal also justified the imposition of interest under section 234C based on a ruling in Joint CIT v. Rolta India Ltd. Additionally, the Tribunal correctly assessed income from other sources and referred the disallowance of club expenses back to the Assessing Officer for clarification. The appeal was dismissed due to lack of valid grounds for interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2014 12:17:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351548" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 279 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245808</link>
      <description>The appeal by the appellant-assessee, a hotel business company, challenging deductions claimed under section 80HHD and interest levied under section 234C for the assessment year 1997-98 was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the previous court decision on the section 80HHD claim, citing a pending apex court consideration. The Tribunal also justified the imposition of interest under section 234C based on a ruling in Joint CIT v. Rolta India Ltd. Additionally, the Tribunal correctly assessed income from other sources and referred the disallowance of club expenses back to the Assessing Officer for clarification. The appeal was dismissed due to lack of valid grounds for interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>