<?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>2011 (3) TMI 129 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203380</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding the treatment of profit under Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, favoring revenue. It confirmed the inclusion of face value of DEPB in profit calculation and upheld the deduction under Section 80HHC in line with the retrospective effect of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Court emphasized compliance with legislative changes and established precedents in resolving the complex issues presented in the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 00:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 129 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203380</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding the treatment of profit under Sections 28(iiid) and 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, favoring revenue. It confirmed the inclusion of face value of DEPB in profit calculation and upheld the deduction under Section 80HHC in line with the retrospective effect of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Court emphasized compliance with legislative changes and established precedents in resolving the complex issues presented in the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203380</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>