<?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>1996 (3) TMI 463 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107418</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled against the assessee on both issues. The court held that the assessee was not entitled to higher development rebate and initial depreciation as its activities did not constitute manufacturing textiles. Additionally, the court determined that the relief under Section 80J should be allowed only after the set off of unabsorbed development rebate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:03:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144435" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 463 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107418</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled against the assessee on both issues. The court held that the assessee was not entitled to higher development rebate and initial depreciation as its activities did not constitute manufacturing textiles. Additionally, the court determined that the relief under Section 80J should be allowed only after the set off of unabsorbed development rebate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107418</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>