<?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>1989 (9) TMI 32 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23548</link>
    <description>Interest on a decretal amount could not be taxed again in the assessee&#039;s hands where the same income had already been finally assessed in the hands of a sister concern. On those facts, the Tribunal correctly deleted the addition because identical income cannot lawfully be subjected to tax twice in the hands of different assessees, and no referable question of law arose from that deletion. The reference petition therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:59:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 32 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23548</link>
      <description>Interest on a decretal amount could not be taxed again in the assessee&#039;s hands where the same income had already been finally assessed in the hands of a sister concern. On those facts, the Tribunal correctly deleted the addition because identical income cannot lawfully be subjected to tax twice in the hands of different assessees, and no referable question of law arose from that deletion. The reference petition therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>