<?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>Interest paid on funds invested in partnership firm allowed as deduction.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84159</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal and held that the disallowance of interest expenditure claimed as a deduction against interest income from the partnership firm was not sustainable. The assessee had sourced funds from both interest-bearing loans and non-interest-bearing funds, which were majorly invested in the capital of partnership firms for business purposes. The revenue contended that since the investment did not earn any income except from one firm, the interest paid u/s 36(1)(iii) was not allowable. However, the ITAT observed that the commercial expediency must be considered for allowability u/s 36(1)(iii), and the revenue did not raise any contention in this regard. The ITAT noted that without establishing a one-to-one match, i.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2024 08:46:57 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2024 08:46:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783801" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Interest paid on funds invested in partnership firm allowed as deduction.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84159</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal and held that the disallowance of interest expenditure claimed as a deduction against interest income from the partnership firm was not sustainable. The assessee had sourced funds from both interest-bearing loans and non-interest-bearing funds, which were majorly invested in the capital of partnership firms for business purposes. The revenue contended that since the investment did not earn any income except from one firm, the interest paid u/s 36(1)(iii) was not allowable. However, the ITAT observed that the commercial expediency must be considered for allowability u/s 36(1)(iii), and the revenue did not raise any contention in this regard. The ITAT noted that without establishing a one-to-one match, i.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2024 08:46:57 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84159</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>