<?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>2014 (1) TMI 1089 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242874</link>
    <description>The High Court classified the assessee&#039;s rental income as &#039;Business Income&#039; based on the nature of the assessee&#039;s business, upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision. The Court favored the assessee on the applicability of Section 27(iii)(b) and lease terms interpretation, dismissing the department&#039;s challenges. The Court also upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision without detailed analysis of a previous judgment, ruling in favor of the assessee and dismissing the department&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:33:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=343378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1089 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242874</link>
      <description>The High Court classified the assessee&#039;s rental income as &#039;Business Income&#039; based on the nature of the assessee&#039;s business, upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision. The Court favored the assessee on the applicability of Section 27(iii)(b) and lease terms interpretation, dismissing the department&#039;s challenges. The Court also upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision without detailed analysis of a previous judgment, ruling in favor of the assessee and dismissing the department&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>