<?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 (2) TMI 59 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11982</link>
    <description>Interest earned on temporarily deployed excess share application money is taxable as income from other sources because its revenue character is not changed by the intended use of the funds, in line with Tuticorin Alkali. The related public issue expenses were treated as eligible for amortisation under section 35D, and no prejudice was shown from that treatment. Interference with the Settlement Commission&#039;s order was not justified because no grave procedural defect, violation of natural justice, or absence of nexus between reasons and decision was established. The writ challenge therefore failed and the Commission&#039;s determination remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50994" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 59 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11982</link>
      <description>Interest earned on temporarily deployed excess share application money is taxable as income from other sources because its revenue character is not changed by the intended use of the funds, in line with Tuticorin Alkali. The related public issue expenses were treated as eligible for amortisation under section 35D, and no prejudice was shown from that treatment. Interference with the Settlement Commission&#039;s order was not justified because no grave procedural defect, violation of natural justice, or absence of nexus between reasons and decision was established. The writ challenge therefore failed and the Commission&#039;s determination remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>