<?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>2015 (7) TMI 1278 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272485</link>
    <description>Delay in re-filing the appeal was condoned, allowing the application to proceed. The matter was then listed for final hearing on whether interest paid on borrowings used for investment could be treated as business expenditure. No substantive ruling on that tax treatment issue was given at this stage; it was left for argument.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 May 2018 06:51:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 1278 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272485</link>
      <description>Delay in re-filing the appeal was condoned, allowing the application to proceed. The matter was then listed for final hearing on whether interest paid on borrowings used for investment could be treated as business expenditure. No substantive ruling on that tax treatment issue was given at this stage; it was left for argument.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272485</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>