<?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>1999 (4) TMI 58 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15926</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the assessability of storage charge income under &#039;Business,&#039; holding that the rental income from the superstructures let out for business purposes was income from the business. However, the court sided with the Revenue on the assessability of interest income on a loan, determining that without evidence of the loan being from the business fund, the interest income could not be treated as business income. Regarding the deductibility of maintenance and depreciation expenditure as business expenditure, the court allowed the maintenance allowance but set aside the order on depreciation due to lack of proof of ownership.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:37:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54926" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 58 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15926</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the assessability of storage charge income under &#039;Business,&#039; holding that the rental income from the superstructures let out for business purposes was income from the business. However, the court sided with the Revenue on the assessability of interest income on a loan, determining that without evidence of the loan being from the business fund, the interest income could not be treated as business income. Regarding the deductibility of maintenance and depreciation expenditure as business expenditure, the court allowed the maintenance allowance but set aside the order on depreciation due to lack of proof of ownership.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15926</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>