<?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>2003 (4) TMI 576 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181842</link>
    <description>The court held that interest paid on delayed income tax is not deductible as business expenditure under the Income Tax Act, aligning with the view that such interest is considered part of the tax itself. The appellant&#039;s reliance on previous cases supporting deduction was deemed unfavorable, as the court found interest on income tax akin to tax itself, disallowing its deduction. The appeal was dismissed without costs, affirming that interest on delayed tax payment does not qualify as an allowable deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:03:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425259" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 576 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181842</link>
      <description>The court held that interest paid on delayed income tax is not deductible as business expenditure under the Income Tax Act, aligning with the view that such interest is considered part of the tax itself. The appellant&#039;s reliance on previous cases supporting deduction was deemed unfavorable, as the court found interest on income tax akin to tax itself, disallowing its deduction. The appeal was dismissed without costs, affirming that interest on delayed tax payment does not qualify as an allowable deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181842</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>