<?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>1983 (12) TMI 112 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65964</link>
    <description>The appeals filed by the revenue were partly allowed. The Tribunal remanded the matters back to the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for bifurcation of business promotion expenses and quantification of relief under section 80J, pending the Supreme Court&#039;s decision on retrospective amendments. The Tribunal upheld the eligibility of the assessee as a new industrial undertaking entitled to relief under section 80J, based on the commercial distinction of the end product.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:10:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=104400" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (12) TMI 112 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65964</link>
      <description>The appeals filed by the revenue were partly allowed. The Tribunal remanded the matters back to the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for bifurcation of business promotion expenses and quantification of relief under section 80J, pending the Supreme Court&#039;s decision on retrospective amendments. The Tribunal upheld the eligibility of the assessee as a new industrial undertaking entitled to relief under section 80J, based on the commercial distinction of the end product.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>