<?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 808 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245360</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee that the deduction under Section 80IA should not be reduced by losses and depreciation already set off against other income. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for verification and application of the legal interpretation provided. The court confirmed that previously adjusted losses and depreciation should not impact the deduction computation under Section 80IA, in line with the interpretation of relevant provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2014 08:33:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 808 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245360</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee that the deduction under Section 80IA should not be reduced by losses and depreciation already set off against other income. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for verification and application of the legal interpretation provided. The court confirmed that previously adjusted losses and depreciation should not impact the deduction computation under Section 80IA, in line with the interpretation of relevant provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245360</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>