<?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>1948 (11) TMI 15 - FEDERAL COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311635</link>
    <description>A trading State was treated as taxable under the Income Tax Act in the same manner and to the same extent as a company where the statutory nexus with money-lending operations was sufficient. Interest on a loan advanced outside British India was assessable, and the challenge to the amended charging provision failed by majority. Managing agency commission linked to the original finance arrangement was also assessable as business income. Income from immovable properties bought in court auction was not assessable because the record did not establish that the properties remained business assets. Dividend income was assessable, but the claim for refund or set-off failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 1948 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2024 16:54:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=739140" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1948 (11) TMI 15 - FEDERAL COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311635</link>
      <description>A trading State was treated as taxable under the Income Tax Act in the same manner and to the same extent as a company where the statutory nexus with money-lending operations was sufficient. Interest on a loan advanced outside British India was assessable, and the challenge to the amended charging provision failed by majority. Managing agency commission linked to the original finance arrangement was also assessable as business income. Income from immovable properties bought in court auction was not assessable because the record did not establish that the properties remained business assets. Dividend income was assessable, but the claim for refund or set-off failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 1948 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311635</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>