<?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>2017 (11) TMI 1826 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280969</link>
    <description>The ITAT&#039;s judgment in this case provided a balanced approach, addressing each issue based on the merits and legal precedents. Unclaimed refunds were not immediately treated as income but could be after three years. Income from industrial area activities was to be accounted for in a subsequent year to avoid double taxation. Profits from the sale of shares were treated as capital gains. Dividend income was held exempt under section 10(34), with expenses for earning exempt income to be disallowed. Disallowance of interest expenditure was upheld where borrowed funds were used for non-business purposes. The appeals were partly allowed, providing relief to the assessee on several grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 May 2019 06:54:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=573021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1826 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280969</link>
      <description>The ITAT&#039;s judgment in this case provided a balanced approach, addressing each issue based on the merits and legal precedents. Unclaimed refunds were not immediately treated as income but could be after three years. Income from industrial area activities was to be accounted for in a subsequent year to avoid double taxation. Profits from the sale of shares were treated as capital gains. Dividend income was held exempt under section 10(34), with expenses for earning exempt income to be disallowed. Disallowance of interest expenditure was upheld where borrowed funds were used for non-business purposes. The appeals were partly allowed, providing relief to the assessee on several grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280969</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>