<?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 (7) TMI 115 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424560</link>
    <description>In ITA No. 144/Hyd/2020, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order of the ld.CIT(A) was set aside. In ITA No. 148/Hyd/2020, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the order of the ld.CIT(A) was upheld. The court found that the debatable issue of the nexus between borrowed funds and exempt income led to different outcomes in the two cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2022 09:08:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=683863" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 115 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424560</link>
      <description>In ITA No. 144/Hyd/2020, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order of the ld.CIT(A) was set aside. In ITA No. 148/Hyd/2020, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the order of the ld.CIT(A) was upheld. The court found that the debatable issue of the nexus between borrowed funds and exempt income led to different outcomes in the two cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424560</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>