https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274272 HC upheld the Tribunal's findings in part: interest disallowance was reversed since investments could be presumed to be from interest-free funds, so interest deduction stood. Tribunal correctly held that prior to Explanation-5 to s.32 depreciation was optional and could not be imposed on the assessee. Pre-operative expenses for units not yet producing were allowed following the Tribunal's prior view and settled factual precedent. Deduction under s.80M limited to actual expenses incurred in earning dividend income. Applying a 2.5% guarantee commission was unjustified; tribunal's acceptance of lower actual rates was sustained. en-us Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Sep 2025 14:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274272 HC upheld the Tribunal's findings in part: interest disallowance was reversed since investments could be presumed to be from interest-free funds, so interest deduction stood. Tribunal correctly held that prior to Explanation-5 to s.32 depreciation was optional and could not be imposed on the assessee. Pre-operative expenses for units not yet producing were allowed following the Tribunal's prior view and settled factual precedent. Deduction under s.80M limited to actual expenses incurred in earning dividend income. Applying a 2.5% guarantee commission was unjustified; tribunal's acceptance of lower actual rates was sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274272