<?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>2000 (8) TMI 65 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14849</link>
    <description>A deduction for interest on a loan standing in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi was rejected because the Tribunal had relied on an earlier High Court precedent that no longer governed after being overruled by the Supreme Court. Once that precedent ceased to hold the field, the legal basis for allowing the deduction disappeared, and the claim could not be sustained. The question was therefore answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:12:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53849" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 65 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14849</link>
      <description>A deduction for interest on a loan standing in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi was rejected because the Tribunal had relied on an earlier High Court precedent that no longer governed after being overruled by the Supreme Court. Once that precedent ceased to hold the field, the legal basis for allowing the deduction disappeared, and the claim could not be sustained. The question was therefore answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>