<?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>2013 (2) TMI 210 - JAMMU &amp; KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220805</link>
    <description>The appeals were dismissed based on the treatment of the excise duty refund as a Capital Receipt, following legal precedent. The Division Bench held that such income is not taxable, leading to the rejection of the appeals against the revenue. Additionally, the disallowances under Section 40 (ia) were also affected by this decision, resulting in the overall dismissal of the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2013 06:56:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194166" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 210 - JAMMU &amp; KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220805</link>
      <description>The appeals were dismissed based on the treatment of the excise duty refund as a Capital Receipt, following legal precedent. The Division Bench held that such income is not taxable, leading to the rejection of the appeals against the revenue. Additionally, the disallowances under Section 40 (ia) were also affected by this decision, resulting in the overall dismissal of the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>