<?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 (11) TMI 521 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350642</link>
    <description>Interest earned on fixed deposits created from surplus funds was held to lack a direct nexus with the assessee&#039;s business activity and therefore could not be treated as business income for computing book profit under Section 40(b)(v) for partners&#039; remuneration. Because the deposits were not made out of business necessity, the interest was excluded from book profit. The reference to Section 115J did not alter the position, as the computation issue fell to be decided under the specific scheme governing partners&#039; remuneration in Chapter IV-D. The Revenue&#039;s view was upheld and the assessee&#039;s claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 15:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495296" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 521 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350642</link>
      <description>Interest earned on fixed deposits created from surplus funds was held to lack a direct nexus with the assessee&#039;s business activity and therefore could not be treated as business income for computing book profit under Section 40(b)(v) for partners&#039; remuneration. Because the deposits were not made out of business necessity, the interest was excluded from book profit. The reference to Section 115J did not alter the position, as the computation issue fell to be decided under the specific scheme governing partners&#039; remuneration in Chapter IV-D. The Revenue&#039;s view was upheld and the assessee&#039;s claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350642</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>