<?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>2009 (1) TMI 261 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34938</link>
    <description>Interest earned from loans advanced to employees was treated as income from other sources, but deduction under section 57(iii) was unavailable because the interest paid to NABARD was not expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for earning that income. No direct nexus existed between the two interest streams, so the claimed set-off was impermissible and the assessee&#039;s claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73548" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 261 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34938</link>
      <description>Interest earned from loans advanced to employees was treated as income from other sources, but deduction under section 57(iii) was unavailable because the interest paid to NABARD was not expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for earning that income. No direct nexus existed between the two interest streams, so the claimed set-off was impermissible and the assessee&#039;s claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>