<?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 (6) TMI 264 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213944</link>
    <description>The High Court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s order of remand, finding no justification for reassessment, and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant, with no costs incurred. The Court upheld the appellant&#039;s claim of deduction under Section 10B, stating that all conditions for exemption were satisfied, and found compliance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as the evidence was duly verified by the Assessing Officer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187344" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 264 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213944</link>
      <description>The High Court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s order of remand, finding no justification for reassessment, and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant, with no costs incurred. The Court upheld the appellant&#039;s claim of deduction under Section 10B, stating that all conditions for exemption were satisfied, and found compliance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as the evidence was duly verified by the Assessing Officer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213944</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>