<?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>2014 (7) TMI 1282 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277049</link>
    <description>The appeal against the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) citing lack of commercial expediency in advancing funds to Jay Ess Exports, in line with the precedent set by the High Court of Punjab &amp;amp; Haryana. The Tribunal emphasized the need to establish commercial expediency for interest-free loans and found no justification for the interest disallowance, thereby affirming the original decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 21:20:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=543333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 1282 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277049</link>
      <description>The appeal against the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) citing lack of commercial expediency in advancing funds to Jay Ess Exports, in line with the precedent set by the High Court of Punjab &amp;amp; Haryana. The Tribunal emphasized the need to establish commercial expediency for interest-free loans and found no justification for the interest disallowance, thereby affirming the original decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>