<?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>2000 (5) TMI 177 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70059</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the CIT&#039;s order lacked jurisdiction under section 263. The assessee is entitled to extra-shift allowance for leased machinery used in double or triple shifts, based on the interpretation of section 32, relevant rules, and judicial precedents. The Tribunal emphasized that the Board&#039;s circulars support the assessee&#039;s claim and must be followed by revenue authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2017 14:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 177 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70059</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the CIT&#039;s order lacked jurisdiction under section 263. The assessee is entitled to extra-shift allowance for leased machinery used in double or triple shifts, based on the interpretation of section 32, relevant rules, and judicial precedents. The Tribunal emphasized that the Board&#039;s circulars support the assessee&#039;s claim and must be followed by revenue authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>