<?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 (4) TMI 122 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245624</link>
    <description>The court allowed the appeal, quashing the Tribunal&#039;s judgment. It held that the rear courtyard should not be included in the built-up area, and the appellant was entitled to the deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. The court did not find it necessary to address the second substantial question of law due to the findings on the first issue. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 12:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 122 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245624</link>
      <description>The court allowed the appeal, quashing the Tribunal&#039;s judgment. It held that the rear courtyard should not be included in the built-up area, and the appellant was entitled to the deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act. The court did not find it necessary to address the second substantial question of law due to the findings on the first issue. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>