<?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>1935 (1) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF RANGOON</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292643</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the Commissioner of Income-tax, holding that the interest accrued on loans from non-Chettyar debtors, treated as received and taxed by the assessees, should be deemed as income for assessment purposes. The judgment emphasized the importance of consistent accounting practices and the need for material evidence to determine accrued income for income tax assessments. The court rejected the assessees&#039; argument of deferring income tax payment, stating that the interest amount should be included in the assessment. The assessees were required to pay costs, and the decision upheld the Income-tax Officer&#039;s assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2021 14:20:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=631948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1935 (1) TMI 28 - HIGH COURT OF RANGOON</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292643</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the Commissioner of Income-tax, holding that the interest accrued on loans from non-Chettyar debtors, treated as received and taxed by the assessees, should be deemed as income for assessment purposes. The judgment emphasized the importance of consistent accounting practices and the need for material evidence to determine accrued income for income tax assessments. The court rejected the assessees&#039; argument of deferring income tax payment, stating that the interest amount should be included in the assessment. The assessees were required to pay costs, and the decision upheld the Income-tax Officer&#039;s assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292643</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>