<?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>1995 (4) TMI 34 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18927</link>
    <description>Interest paid by a firm to its partners under section 40(b) was to be adjusted against interest received from those partners on overdrawn accounts, so that only the net interest payment, if any, remained subject to disallowance. The Court followed the Supreme Court&#039;s approach that the mischief of section 40(b) is not attracted to the gross payment where reciprocal interest transactions eliminate any net interest outgo to partners. The answer was therefore in favour of the assessee and against the Department.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:14:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57926" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (4) TMI 34 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18927</link>
      <description>Interest paid by a firm to its partners under section 40(b) was to be adjusted against interest received from those partners on overdrawn accounts, so that only the net interest payment, if any, remained subject to disallowance. The Court followed the Supreme Court&#039;s approach that the mischief of section 40(b) is not attracted to the gross payment where reciprocal interest transactions eliminate any net interest outgo to partners. The answer was therefore in favour of the assessee and against the Department.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>