{"id":32,"date":"2008-02-24T08:39:16","date_gmt":"2008-02-24T08:39:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=32"},"modified":"2008-02-24T08:39:16","modified_gmt":"2008-02-24T08:39:16","slug":"munjal-sales-vs-cit-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/munjal-sales-vs-cit-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Munjal Sales vs. CIT (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/downloads2\/index.php?munjal_interest.pdf\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.itatonline.org\/images\/download.gif?w=605\" class=\"alignright\" border=\"0\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>(i) A firm seeking to claim deduction of interest paid on capital from its partners has to first satisfy the requirements of s. 36(1)(iii) and thereafter the limits imposed by s. 40(b)(iv). The fact that the said capital is not \u201cloans\u201d or \u201cadvances\u201d is irrelevant. <\/p>\n<p>(ii) Where loans given in an earlier year were accepted as having been given for business purposes, the interest thereon could not be disallowed in a subsequent year. <\/p>\n<p>(iii) Where the assessee had sufficient profits and own funds, the submission that loans to sister concerns were out of those funds had to be accepted. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>(i) A firm seeking to claim deduction of interest paid on capital from its partners has to first satisfy the requirements of s. 36(1)(iii) and thereafter the limits imposed by s. 40(b)(iv). The fact that the said capital is not &hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more\"> <a class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/munjal-sales-vs-cit-supreme-court\/\"> <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Munjal Sales vs. CIT (Supreme Court)<\/span> Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}