<?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>1988 (4) TMI 110 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64209</link>
    <description>Section 104 relief for industrial or mining companies depends on the gross total income including positive income from the qualifying manufacturing, processing or mining activity, and that income forming at least 51 per cent of the total. Where brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation reduce the qualifying activity&#039;s income to nil, the statutory exception does not apply and levy under section 104 remains attracted. A plea that inadequate profits or lack of distributable surplus should defeat the levy was rejected on the facts because the company had substantial free reserves and no weak liquid position. The tax rate, however, had been wrongly applied as for an investment company and required correction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 02 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Feb 2011 14:19:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 110 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64209</link>
      <description>Section 104 relief for industrial or mining companies depends on the gross total income including positive income from the qualifying manufacturing, processing or mining activity, and that income forming at least 51 per cent of the total. Where brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation reduce the qualifying activity&#039;s income to nil, the statutory exception does not apply and levy under section 104 remains attracted. A plea that inadequate profits or lack of distributable surplus should defeat the levy was rejected on the facts because the company had substantial free reserves and no weak liquid position. The tax rate, however, had been wrongly applied as for an investment company and required correction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 02 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>