Interest paid for broken period should not be considered as part
of the purchase price, but should be allowed as revenue expenditure in
the year of purchase of securities. American Express vs. CIT 258 ITR 601
(Bom) affirmed, Vijaya Bank 187 ITR 541 (SC) distinguishe.
Article referred: http://itatonline.org/archives/cit-vs-citibank-n-a-supreme-court-interest-paid-for-broken-period-should-not-be-considered-as-part-of-the-purchase-price-but-should-be-allowed-as-revenue-expenditure-in-the-year-of-purchase-of-securi/
Article referred: http://itatonline.org/archives/cit-vs-citibank-n-a-supreme-court-interest-paid-for-broken-period-should-not-be-considered-as-part-of-the-purchase-price-but-should-be-allowed-as-revenue-expenditure-in-the-year-of-purchase-of-securi/
Comments
Post a Comment