<?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 (7) TMI 216 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249179</link>
    <description>The court held that job charges are an integral part of the business activity and should be included in the total turnover. It determined that job work charges are operational income and distinct from other types of charges like brokerage or commission. The court also decided that interest on fixed deposits with MMTC should be treated as business income and allowed as a deduction under Section 80 HHC. The appeals by the department were dismissed, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decisions in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=358947" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 216 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249179</link>
      <description>The court held that job charges are an integral part of the business activity and should be included in the total turnover. It determined that job work charges are operational income and distinct from other types of charges like brokerage or commission. The court also decided that interest on fixed deposits with MMTC should be treated as business income and allowed as a deduction under Section 80 HHC. The appeals by the department were dismissed, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decisions in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>