<?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>2010 (9) TMI 906 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126804</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision regarding the eligibility of interest received on margin deposits for deduction under section 10B, stating that the interest income, as part of the business profits, should be considered for the deduction. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s first ground of appeal. In the case of the inclusion of the sale of raw materials in the total turnover for computing deduction under section 10B, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision in principle but directed the AO to verify if the rough diamonds were returned to the same supplier. The appeal of the Department was partly allowed, with the first ground dismissed and the second ground requiring further verification by the AO.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:07:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 906 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126804</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision regarding the eligibility of interest received on margin deposits for deduction under section 10B, stating that the interest income, as part of the business profits, should be considered for the deduction. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s first ground of appeal. In the case of the inclusion of the sale of raw materials in the total turnover for computing deduction under section 10B, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision in principle but directed the AO to verify if the rough diamonds were returned to the same supplier. The appeal of the Department was partly allowed, with the first ground dismissed and the second ground requiring further verification by the AO.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126804</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>