<?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>1990 (10) TMI 18 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22178</link>
    <description>A joint venture loss was treated as adjustable against the assessee&#039;s other income because the arrangement was found to be a joint venture and the earlier view that the loss should be dealt with like a partnership loss had not been challenged further by the Revenue. The Tribunal&#039;s conclusion depended on the factual finding that the assessee had a share in the joint venture loss. On that basis, the loss attributable to the assessee was correctly allowed as an adjustment, and no referable question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:08:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 18 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22178</link>
      <description>A joint venture loss was treated as adjustable against the assessee&#039;s other income because the arrangement was found to be a joint venture and the earlier view that the loss should be dealt with like a partnership loss had not been challenged further by the Revenue. The Tribunal&#039;s conclusion depended on the factual finding that the assessee had a share in the joint venture loss. On that basis, the loss attributable to the assessee was correctly allowed as an adjustment, and no referable question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22178</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>