<?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>2005 (3) TMI 699 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117591</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed both grounds of appeal, directing the AO to recompute deductions under section 80HHC. For the first issue, the Tribunal ruled that profits from the cancellation of forward contracts are integral to the export business and should not be excluded. For the second issue, the Tribunal instructed the AO to exclude only the net interest amount on fixed deposits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2024 10:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154588" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 699 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117591</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed both grounds of appeal, directing the AO to recompute deductions under section 80HHC. For the first issue, the Tribunal ruled that profits from the cancellation of forward contracts are integral to the export business and should not be excluded. For the second issue, the Tribunal instructed the AO to exclude only the net interest amount on fixed deposits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117591</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>