<?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 (2) TMI 710 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404218</link>
    <description>Receipts from the commercial operation and running of a family entertainment centre cum mall, including maintenance recoveries, were held to retain their business character because the activity involved commercial exploitation of the property and the jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal had already decided the same issue on identical facts. The pendency of an SLP did not justify departing from binding precedent, so the receipts were assessable as business income. Once that head of income applied, interest on borrowed funds relating to the Chandigarh property was also allowable as business expenditure, and restriction under section 24(b) did not survive independently.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:35:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=636757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 710 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404218</link>
      <description>Receipts from the commercial operation and running of a family entertainment centre cum mall, including maintenance recoveries, were held to retain their business character because the activity involved commercial exploitation of the property and the jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal had already decided the same issue on identical facts. The pendency of an SLP did not justify departing from binding precedent, so the receipts were assessable as business income. Once that head of income applied, interest on borrowed funds relating to the Chandigarh property was also allowable as business expenditure, and restriction under section 24(b) did not survive independently.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>