<?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>2022 (4) TMI 1231 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421565</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the disallowance of the claim of bad debts as a business loss or bad debt due to insufficient evidence supporting a business purpose for the incurred loss. The Court found that the appellant failed to establish a business connection or intention to purchase property for business expansion. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that interference is warranted only when a judgment is proven wrong, not merely not right.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2022 12:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=677269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 1231 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421565</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the disallowance of the claim of bad debts as a business loss or bad debt due to insufficient evidence supporting a business purpose for the incurred loss. The Court found that the appellant failed to establish a business connection or intention to purchase property for business expansion. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that interference is warranted only when a judgment is proven wrong, not merely not right.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421565</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>