<?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>1966 (3) TMI 89 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189757</link>
    <description>Interest paid by an association of persons to a member who advanced funds for business was deductible as business expenditure under section 10(2)(iii), because an association of persons is distinct from its members and the member acted as a creditor, not as a partner subject to the firm exception. The tribunal&#039;s rule permitting dismissal of an appeal for default was held ultra vires where the statute required decision on merits. An incompetent dismissal order could still be corrected by rectification under section 35(2) if the error was apparent from the record. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee on both points.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:42:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (3) TMI 89 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189757</link>
      <description>Interest paid by an association of persons to a member who advanced funds for business was deductible as business expenditure under section 10(2)(iii), because an association of persons is distinct from its members and the member acted as a creditor, not as a partner subject to the firm exception. The tribunal&#039;s rule permitting dismissal of an appeal for default was held ultra vires where the statute required decision on merits. An incompetent dismissal order could still be corrected by rectification under section 35(2) if the error was apparent from the record. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee on both points.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>