<?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>2015 (8) TMI 1464 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278318</link>
    <description>Premium on Keyman insurance policies taken on the lives of partners is described as deductible business expenditure where the policy protects the firm against loss from the death of a key person and the maturity proceeds accrue to the firm. The article also explains that, for section 14A read with Rule 8D, disallowance must rest on expenditure with a proximate nexus to exempt income; interest on partners&#039; capital is not treated as interest on borrowed money, and where sufficient interest-free funds exist, a borrowed-funds-based proportionate disallowance is not justified. The discussion therefore supports deduction of Keyman insurance premium and a restricted net-interest approach to disallowance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2019 08:01:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=554812" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1464 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278318</link>
      <description>Premium on Keyman insurance policies taken on the lives of partners is described as deductible business expenditure where the policy protects the firm against loss from the death of a key person and the maturity proceeds accrue to the firm. The article also explains that, for section 14A read with Rule 8D, disallowance must rest on expenditure with a proximate nexus to exempt income; interest on partners&#039; capital is not treated as interest on borrowed money, and where sufficient interest-free funds exist, a borrowed-funds-based proportionate disallowance is not justified. The discussion therefore supports deduction of Keyman insurance premium and a restricted net-interest approach to disallowance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>