<?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 (4) TMI 116 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69502</link>
    <description>The subsidy received by the film producer was deemed a revenue receipt and assessable to income-tax. The Special Bench concluded that the subsidy, aimed at reducing production costs, did not involve capital expenditure by the assessee and was directly linked to their professional activity. Therefore, the subsidy was considered part of the assessee&#039;s income and subject to taxation, overturning the Appellate Assistant Commissioner&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:24:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107863" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (4) TMI 116 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69502</link>
      <description>The subsidy received by the film producer was deemed a revenue receipt and assessable to income-tax. The Special Bench concluded that the subsidy, aimed at reducing production costs, did not involve capital expenditure by the assessee and was directly linked to their professional activity. Therefore, the subsidy was considered part of the assessee&#039;s income and subject to taxation, overturning the Appellate Assistant Commissioner&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69502</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>