<?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 398 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212737</link>
    <description>Deduction under section 80IB(4) depends on lawful commencement of manufacture within the stipulated period. Where an industrial undertaking began production before the cut-off date but had not obtained the mandatory factory licence, the claim failed because manufacture carried on in breach of a prohibitory licensing regime did not satisfy the statutory condition. Where the assessee applied for the licence before the cut-off date and the licence was granted shortly thereafter, the delay was treated as technical and the deduction was allowed. The position therefore turned on the factual matrix: absence of a timely licence application defeated the claim, while a timely application followed by delayed grant did not.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186141" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 398 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212737</link>
      <description>Deduction under section 80IB(4) depends on lawful commencement of manufacture within the stipulated period. Where an industrial undertaking began production before the cut-off date but had not obtained the mandatory factory licence, the claim failed because manufacture carried on in breach of a prohibitory licensing regime did not satisfy the statutory condition. Where the assessee applied for the licence before the cut-off date and the licence was granted shortly thereafter, the delay was treated as technical and the deduction was allowed. The position therefore turned on the factual matrix: absence of a timely licence application defeated the claim, while a timely application followed by delayed grant did not.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>