<?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>2020 (8) TMI 74 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397131</link>
    <description>The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of establishing commercial expediency and business purpose for claiming deductions under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment highlighted the need for factual substantiation and consistency in interpreting tax provisions for interest payments on borrowed funds used for business activities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2020 09:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619079" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 74 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397131</link>
      <description>The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of establishing commercial expediency and business purpose for claiming deductions under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment highlighted the need for factual substantiation and consistency in interpreting tax provisions for interest payments on borrowed funds used for business activities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397131</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>