<?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 (9) TMI 659 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216851</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that the assessee was not eligible for a deduction under Section 80IB(11A) of the Income Tax Act as they did not meet the integrated business requirement, specifically the storage condition. The Tribunal emphasized that the provision aimed to encourage the construction of new storage infrastructure to enhance food security and agricultural development, which the assessee did not contribute to. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeals for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190230" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 659 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216851</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that the assessee was not eligible for a deduction under Section 80IB(11A) of the Income Tax Act as they did not meet the integrated business requirement, specifically the storage condition. The Tribunal emphasized that the provision aimed to encourage the construction of new storage infrastructure to enhance food security and agricultural development, which the assessee did not contribute to. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeals for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216851</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>