<?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>2012 (4) TMI 334 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212631</link>
    <description>The court held that the standing charges received were not eligible for deduction under Section 80 IC of the Income Tax Act as they were deemed compensation for non-utilization of machinery rather than income derived from manufacturing activities. The court emphasized the requirement of a direct nexus with manufacturing or production for deductions under Section 80 IC, which was lacking in this case. The appeal was dismissed in favor of the Revenue, with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 334 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212631</link>
      <description>The court held that the standing charges received were not eligible for deduction under Section 80 IC of the Income Tax Act as they were deemed compensation for non-utilization of machinery rather than income derived from manufacturing activities. The court emphasized the requirement of a direct nexus with manufacturing or production for deductions under Section 80 IC, which was lacking in this case. The appeal was dismissed in favor of the Revenue, with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212631</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>