<?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>1993 (10) TMI 311 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152066</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed in part. The central excise refund and other duty drawbacks and incentives were held to be taxable in the hands of the partnership firm. However, the Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction for brokerage on export sales under section 35B(1)(b)(iv). The Third Member&#039;s decision clarified that the central excise refund was not taxable under section 28(iv) as it was a cash receipt, aligning with the Gujarat High Court&#039;s interpretation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:52:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169104" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (10) TMI 311 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152066</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed in part. The central excise refund and other duty drawbacks and incentives were held to be taxable in the hands of the partnership firm. However, the Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction for brokerage on export sales under section 35B(1)(b)(iv). The Third Member&#039;s decision clarified that the central excise refund was not taxable under section 28(iv) as it was a cash receipt, aligning with the Gujarat High Court&#039;s interpretation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>