<?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>2018 (8) TMI 1553 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366081</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the ITAT&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the interpretation of &quot;interest&quot; under Section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act. The Court found the restructuring fee paid by the assessee to be covered under the definition of &quot;interest,&quot; dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the order of the ITAT.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2018 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532346" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1553 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366081</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the ITAT&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the interpretation of &quot;interest&quot; under Section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act. The Court found the restructuring fee paid by the assessee to be covered under the definition of &quot;interest,&quot; dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the order of the ITAT.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366081</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>