<?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 (6) TMI 360 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248456</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the addition of D14,34,606/- as perquisites u/s.2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. It was determined that the interest paid by the assessee on the borrowed amount from CCCPL was a valid expense and not a perquisite. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, emphasizing that the interest paid by the assessee was genuine and no evidence was provided to show that CCCPL incurred any interest expenditure on behalf of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 360 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248456</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the addition of D14,34,606/- as perquisites u/s.2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. It was determined that the interest paid by the assessee on the borrowed amount from CCCPL was a valid expense and not a perquisite. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, emphasizing that the interest paid by the assessee was genuine and no evidence was provided to show that CCCPL incurred any interest expenditure on behalf of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248456</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>