<?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>2021 (1) TMI 403 - ITAT SURAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402811</link>
    <description>Amortised premium on government securities held in the held-to-maturity category is treated as deductible business expenditure for banks, reflecting RBI investment classification and CBDT guidance that such securities are carried at acquisition cost and the premium is amortised over the remaining maturity period. MICR processing charges were also considered in light of the alternative plea that the recipient bank had already included the receipt in taxable income; on that basis, the payer-side disallowance for alleged non-deduction of tax at source could not survive if verified that the amount had been taxed in the recipient&#039;s hands. The appeal was therefore allowed on the first issue and granted limited relief on the second, subject to verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2021 22:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=632845" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (1) TMI 403 - ITAT SURAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402811</link>
      <description>Amortised premium on government securities held in the held-to-maturity category is treated as deductible business expenditure for banks, reflecting RBI investment classification and CBDT guidance that such securities are carried at acquisition cost and the premium is amortised over the remaining maturity period. MICR processing charges were also considered in light of the alternative plea that the recipient bank had already included the receipt in taxable income; on that basis, the payer-side disallowance for alleged non-deduction of tax at source could not survive if verified that the amount had been taxed in the recipient&#039;s hands. The appeal was therefore allowed on the first issue and granted limited relief on the second, subject to verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>