<?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>1994 (4) TMI 46 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19707</link>
    <description>Interest earned on deposits and advances made from surplus funds was held to be taxable as income from other sources, not as business income. The assessee-corporation&#039;s principal object was land development, and the statutory powers to finance projects or assist landholders did not amount to authority to conduct money-lending as a regular commercial business. No board resolution or other material showed an intention to carry on lending as an independent business activity. Because the receipts arose from deployment of funds not required for operations, they fell outside business income treatment under the wider meaning of &quot;business&quot; in the Income-tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:20:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58706" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 46 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19707</link>
      <description>Interest earned on deposits and advances made from surplus funds was held to be taxable as income from other sources, not as business income. The assessee-corporation&#039;s principal object was land development, and the statutory powers to finance projects or assist landholders did not amount to authority to conduct money-lending as a regular commercial business. No board resolution or other material showed an intention to carry on lending as an independent business activity. Because the receipts arose from deployment of funds not required for operations, they fell outside business income treatment under the wider meaning of &quot;business&quot; in the Income-tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>