<?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 (8) TMI 460 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207166</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 10B of the Income-tax Act for manufacturing gherkin pickles, as the conversion process constituted &quot;manufacture.&quot; The Tribunal found that the processes transformed raw gherkins into a distinct product, meeting the definition of &quot;manufacture.&quot; Consequently, the assessee&#039;s appeals were allowed. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the disallowance of advance write-off, stating that the advances were crucial for the business and the failure of farmers to supply gherkins resulted in a revenue loss, justifying the write-off under section 37(1) of the Act. As a result, the Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 460 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207166</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 10B of the Income-tax Act for manufacturing gherkin pickles, as the conversion process constituted &quot;manufacture.&quot; The Tribunal found that the processes transformed raw gherkins into a distinct product, meeting the definition of &quot;manufacture.&quot; Consequently, the assessee&#039;s appeals were allowed. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the disallowance of advance write-off, stating that the advances were crucial for the business and the failure of farmers to supply gherkins resulted in a revenue loss, justifying the write-off under section 37(1) of the Act. As a result, the Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207166</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>