<?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>1999 (2) TMI 18 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13807</link>
    <description>Repairs and maintenance of premises provided rent-free to an employee were treated as a perquisite within the section 40A(5) disallowance framework, so the claim failed. Interest credited to an interest suspense account on sticky loans was held taxable even though it was not taken to the profit and loss account, so the assessee&#039;s objection failed. Section 44C was held inapplicable to expenditure incurred before 1 June 1976 because the provision operated only from that date, so the assessee succeeded on that point. Discounting charges on treasury bills were treated as business income rather than interest on securities, so the Revenue&#039;s contention failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:21:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=52810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 18 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13807</link>
      <description>Repairs and maintenance of premises provided rent-free to an employee were treated as a perquisite within the section 40A(5) disallowance framework, so the claim failed. Interest credited to an interest suspense account on sticky loans was held taxable even though it was not taken to the profit and loss account, so the assessee&#039;s objection failed. Section 44C was held inapplicable to expenditure incurred before 1 June 1976 because the provision operated only from that date, so the assessee succeeded on that point. Discounting charges on treasury bills were treated as business income rather than interest on securities, so the Revenue&#039;s contention failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>