<?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 (3) TMI 622 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245169</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, determining that the assessee&#039;s manufacturing process aligns with Entry 25 of the Eleventh Schedule, disqualifying them from claiming a deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. The decision emphasized the significance of consistency in applying legal principles and rejected the argument based on past benefit allowances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2014 10:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 622 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245169</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, determining that the assessee&#039;s manufacturing process aligns with Entry 25 of the Eleventh Schedule, disqualifying them from claiming a deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. The decision emphasized the significance of consistency in applying legal principles and rejected the argument based on past benefit allowances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245169</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>