<?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 (3) TMI 509 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221743</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the assessee&#039;s appeal, upholding the disallowance of exemption u/s.10B on the profits of the Pune Unit. It emphasized the independent eligibility of each unit for exemption u/s.10B and the computation of business profits for deduction eligibility, rejecting the assessee&#039;s argument of claiming deduction on the total income of both units. The decision was influenced by conflicting views from a Special Bench and the Kerala High Court, ultimately favoring the latter&#039;s interpretation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 509 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221743</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the assessee&#039;s appeal, upholding the disallowance of exemption u/s.10B on the profits of the Pune Unit. It emphasized the independent eligibility of each unit for exemption u/s.10B and the computation of business profits for deduction eligibility, rejecting the assessee&#039;s argument of claiming deduction on the total income of both units. The decision was influenced by conflicting views from a Special Bench and the Kerala High Court, ultimately favoring the latter&#039;s interpretation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221743</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>