<?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>2017 (8) TMI 379 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346321</link>
    <description>Interest earned on fixed deposits from interim land acquisition compensation was held taxable because, once the compensation was withdrawn without any obligation to refund it with interest, the amount became the assessee&#039;s own funds and the deposit income accrued independently. The source of the principal did not alter the taxability of the interest, and the mere possibility of restitution under section 144 CPC did not accrual or tax liability. The earlier Delhi High Court decision was distinguished because it involved a specific undertaking to repay the amount with interest. The question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2018 11:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 379 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346321</link>
      <description>Interest earned on fixed deposits from interim land acquisition compensation was held taxable because, once the compensation was withdrawn without any obligation to refund it with interest, the amount became the assessee&#039;s own funds and the deposit income accrued independently. The source of the principal did not alter the taxability of the interest, and the mere possibility of restitution under section 144 CPC did not accrual or tax liability. The earlier Delhi High Court decision was distinguished because it involved a specific undertaking to repay the amount with interest. The question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>