<?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>2004 (10) TMI 263 - ITAT BOMBAY-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59356</link>
    <description>Interest exempt under section 10(15)(iv)(fa) was claimed on a gross basis for approved foreign currency deposits. The Revenue argued that only net interest, after excluding expenditure attributable to earning the income and by reference to section 14A, could qualify for exemption. However, the appellate finding that no identifiable expenditure or borrowed funds had been incurred to earn the exempt interest was left unchallenged. On that footing, the gross-versus-net controversy became academic and did not require merits adjudication. The Revenue&#039;s ground was rejected as devoid of substance, and the assessee retained the exemption allowed by the first appellate authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 263 - ITAT BOMBAY-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59356</link>
      <description>Interest exempt under section 10(15)(iv)(fa) was claimed on a gross basis for approved foreign currency deposits. The Revenue argued that only net interest, after excluding expenditure attributable to earning the income and by reference to section 14A, could qualify for exemption. However, the appellate finding that no identifiable expenditure or borrowed funds had been incurred to earn the exempt interest was left unchallenged. On that footing, the gross-versus-net controversy became academic and did not require merits adjudication. The Revenue&#039;s ground was rejected as devoid of substance, and the assessee retained the exemption allowed by the first appellate authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59356</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>