<?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>2004 (10) TMI 306 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70273</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues. The income from the partnership firm, though not individually disclosed, was considered disclosed for block assessment purposes due to being reflected in the firm&#039;s returns and advance tax payments. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the rebate under section 88 in the block assessment, in line with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:30:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 306 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70273</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues. The income from the partnership firm, though not individually disclosed, was considered disclosed for block assessment purposes due to being reflected in the firm&#039;s returns and advance tax payments. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the rebate under section 88 in the block assessment, in line with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70273</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>