<?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>2026 (5) TMI 1566 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792364</link>
    <description>Interest on money borrowed and invested merely as capital in a firm is not deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) unless the borrowing is for the assessee&#039;s own business or profession. As the partner was not carrying on any business on her own and the firm alone conducted the business, the borrowed funds could not be treated as capital borrowed for her business purpose. The deduction claim was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 07:29:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=903981" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1566 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792364</link>
      <description>Interest on money borrowed and invested merely as capital in a firm is not deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) unless the borrowing is for the assessee&#039;s own business or profession. As the partner was not carrying on any business on her own and the firm alone conducted the business, the borrowed funds could not be treated as capital borrowed for her business purpose. The deduction claim was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>