<?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>1964 (4) TMI 120 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178235</link>
    <description>Interest on capital genuinely borrowed for business purposes was deductible even where the loan was used to acquire a co-sharer&#039;s interest in the family business on partition, because the provision did not require the borrowing to be limited to revenue assets or to be necessary despite the assessee&#039;s own funds. Reassessment under section 34(1)(b) was permissible only on fresh information leading to a belief that income had escaped assessment; a mere reconsideration of the same material or change of opinion was insufficient. On the stated facts, both the deduction and the challenge to reopening were resolved in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2016 16:56:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414857" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (4) TMI 120 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178235</link>
      <description>Interest on capital genuinely borrowed for business purposes was deductible even where the loan was used to acquire a co-sharer&#039;s interest in the family business on partition, because the provision did not require the borrowing to be limited to revenue assets or to be necessary despite the assessee&#039;s own funds. Reassessment under section 34(1)(b) was permissible only on fresh information leading to a belief that income had escaped assessment; a mere reconsideration of the same material or change of opinion was insufficient. On the stated facts, both the deduction and the challenge to reopening were resolved in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178235</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>