<?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>2008 (3) TMI 325 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35087</link>
    <description>Broken period interest paid by a bank on purchase of securities forms part of the capital cost of acquiring the securities and is not deductible as revenue expenditure, even after deletion of sections 18 to 21 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Rajasthan High Court followed Vijaya Bank Ltd. and held that the fact that the related interest income is assessed under business income does not change the character of the payment. On that basis, the Tribunal&#039;s interference with the Commissioner&#039;s revision under section 263 could not stand because the assessment allowing the deduction was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The revisionary order was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 325 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35087</link>
      <description>Broken period interest paid by a bank on purchase of securities forms part of the capital cost of acquiring the securities and is not deductible as revenue expenditure, even after deletion of sections 18 to 21 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Rajasthan High Court followed Vijaya Bank Ltd. and held that the fact that the related interest income is assessed under business income does not change the character of the payment. On that basis, the Tribunal&#039;s interference with the Commissioner&#039;s revision under section 263 could not stand because the assessment allowing the deduction was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The revisionary order was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>