<?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>Commercial expediency and rectification limits upheld as interest deduction was allowed and no apparent mistake was found.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98611</link>
    <description>Interest on borrowed capital was held deductible as revenue expenditure because the Tribunal&#039;s binding factual finding showed the investments in subsidiary or joint venture concerns were made for business expansion and commercial expediency in the assessee&#039;s fertilizer business. The Revenue&#039;s contrary view was rejected, and the later remand on actual use of borrowed funds was treated as academic in light of that finding. On rectification, the Court held that a prior liberty to move the Tribunal did not oblige it to allow rectification; no mistake apparent from the record was shown, so dismissal of the miscellaneous petition was proper. The appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:09:11 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:09:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Commercial expediency and rectification limits upheld as interest deduction was allowed and no apparent mistake was found.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98611</link>
      <description>Interest on borrowed capital was held deductible as revenue expenditure because the Tribunal&#039;s binding factual finding showed the investments in subsidiary or joint venture concerns were made for business expansion and commercial expediency in the assessee&#039;s fertilizer business. The Revenue&#039;s contrary view was rejected, and the later remand on actual use of borrowed funds was treated as academic in light of that finding. On rectification, the Court held that a prior liberty to move the Tribunal did not oblige it to allow rectification; no mistake apparent from the record was shown, so dismissal of the miscellaneous petition was proper. The appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:09:11 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98611</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>