<?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>2024 (6) TMI 684 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754077</link>
    <description>Section 43B disallowance was held inapplicable to unpaid interest on a World Bank-linked loan where the liability had been paid to the State Government and the cited exceptions under clauses (d), (da) and (e) did not cover it on the facts. The later subsidy arrangement did not change the character of that interest liability for section 43B purposes, so the disallowance was deleted. Electricity duty collected from consumers was also treated as a levy on the consumers rather than a tax or duty payable by the assessee itself, because the assessee acted only as a collecting intermediary for remittance to the State Government. The deletion of that addition was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:45:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 684 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754077</link>
      <description>Section 43B disallowance was held inapplicable to unpaid interest on a World Bank-linked loan where the liability had been paid to the State Government and the cited exceptions under clauses (d), (da) and (e) did not cover it on the facts. The later subsidy arrangement did not change the character of that interest liability for section 43B purposes, so the disallowance was deleted. Electricity duty collected from consumers was also treated as a levy on the consumers rather than a tax or duty payable by the assessee itself, because the assessee acted only as a collecting intermediary for remittance to the State Government. The deletion of that addition was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754077</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>