<?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 (12) TMI 1422 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353153</link>
    <description>Finance charges arising from hire purchase transactions were treated as interest under the Interest Tax Act, 1974 because the statutory definition of &quot;interest&quot; covers amounts on loans and advances. The Court relied on an earlier decision involving the same assessee on identical facts, where transactions in substance found to be loans or advances were held taxable despite being described as finance charges or hire-purchase instalments. The Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was found inconsistent with that binding precedent and with the factual character of the transactions. The assessment restored by the first appellate authority was upheld, and the assessee&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1422 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353153</link>
      <description>Finance charges arising from hire purchase transactions were treated as interest under the Interest Tax Act, 1974 because the statutory definition of &quot;interest&quot; covers amounts on loans and advances. The Court relied on an earlier decision involving the same assessee on identical facts, where transactions in substance found to be loans or advances were held taxable despite being described as finance charges or hire-purchase instalments. The Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was found inconsistent with that binding precedent and with the factual character of the transactions. The assessment restored by the first appellate authority was upheld, and the assessee&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>