<?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 (8) TMI 1049 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460338</link>
    <description>The SC ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that interest on the sale of securities should be taxed under &#039;interest on securities&#039; rather than &#039;Income from Business.&#039; The court upheld the HC&#039;s interpretation that section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with disallowance of certain expenditures, does not apply to expenses apportioned under &#039;interest on securities.&#039; The SC also agreed that section 40A&#039;s restrictions do not apply to deductible expenses under sections 30, 31, 36, and 37 when apportioning expenses for banking companies. The appeals were dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:49:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=790283" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 1049 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460338</link>
      <description>The SC ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that interest on the sale of securities should be taxed under &#039;interest on securities&#039; rather than &#039;Income from Business.&#039; The court upheld the HC&#039;s interpretation that section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with disallowance of certain expenditures, does not apply to expenses apportioned under &#039;interest on securities.&#039; The SC also agreed that section 40A&#039;s restrictions do not apply to deductible expenses under sections 30, 31, 36, and 37 when apportioning expenses for banking companies. The appeals were dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460338</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>