<?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>2015 (6) TMI 1239 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302923</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the classification of the amount receivable as a loan, not a trade advance. Consequently, the assessee was denied deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) and the claim for business loss under Section 37 was rejected. The loss was determined to be capital in nature, with cited case laws deemed irrelevant to the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2022 07:47:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=682986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 1239 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302923</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the classification of the amount receivable as a loan, not a trade advance. Consequently, the assessee was denied deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) and the claim for business loss under Section 37 was rejected. The loss was determined to be capital in nature, with cited case laws deemed irrelevant to the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>