<?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>2015 (10) TMI 1491 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266216</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)&#039;s decision to delete the disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10. The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the utilization of funds, demonstrating that the interest-bearing loan was directly used for legitimate business purposes. The Revenue&#039;s argument of diversion of funds was rejected, and the Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue cannot interfere with how the assessee conducts its business within legal boundaries. Consequently, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:52:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1491 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266216</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)&#039;s decision to delete the disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10. The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the utilization of funds, demonstrating that the interest-bearing loan was directly used for legitimate business purposes. The Revenue&#039;s argument of diversion of funds was rejected, and the Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue cannot interfere with how the assessee conducts its business within legal boundaries. Consequently, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266216</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>