<?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 (7) TMI 1551 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458652</link>
    <description>The Delhi HC upheld the disallowance of business expenses claimed for money lending activities where no interest income was earned during the relevant assessment year. The court rejected the assessee&#039;s contention that they were engaged in money lending business, finding that evidence from complaint proceedings did not support that funds were advanced for money lending purposes. The court noted discrepancies in previous years regarding interest income reporting and tax reconciliation issues. The HC concluded that the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to sustain the disallowance was correct, dismissing arguments about money lending activities in other years as unsustainable given the factual circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 18:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=777376" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1551 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458652</link>
      <description>The Delhi HC upheld the disallowance of business expenses claimed for money lending activities where no interest income was earned during the relevant assessment year. The court rejected the assessee&#039;s contention that they were engaged in money lending business, finding that evidence from complaint proceedings did not support that funds were advanced for money lending purposes. The court noted discrepancies in previous years regarding interest income reporting and tax reconciliation issues. The HC concluded that the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to sustain the disallowance was correct, dismissing arguments about money lending activities in other years as unsustainable given the factual circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>