<?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>1960 (1) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276951</link>
    <description>Interest on money borrowed to acquire land from which agricultural income was earned was treated as deductible under section 5(e) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, rather than being confined to section 5(k). The Court applied the test whether the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the land, and held that borrowing to acquire the income-yielding source, together with interest on that borrowing, was integrally connected with that purpose. The interest did not cease to be deductible merely because it discharged the assessee&#039;s personal liability as borrower. The narrower view of the Tribunal was rejected, and the full claim was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 17:57:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (1) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276951</link>
      <description>Interest on money borrowed to acquire land from which agricultural income was earned was treated as deductible under section 5(e) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, rather than being confined to section 5(k). The Court applied the test whether the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the land, and held that borrowing to acquire the income-yielding source, together with interest on that borrowing, was integrally connected with that purpose. The interest did not cease to be deductible merely because it discharged the assessee&#039;s personal liability as borrower. The narrower view of the Tribunal was rejected, and the full claim was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>