<?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 (9) TMI 362 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251336</link>
    <description>Deduction under section 80IB was examined for an industrial undertaking engaged in film production, where the Revenue argued that use of hired plant and machinery disqualified the assessee. The Court noted that the identical deduction claim had been accepted in earlier assessment years and followed consistently by the Tribunal, and treated the attempt to disturb that settled position as misconceived. It also found the Supreme Court ruling under section 15C of the 1922 Act inapposite because the real issue was not business reconstruction. The appeal was held not to raise any substantial question of law, and the deduction was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=364943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 362 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251336</link>
      <description>Deduction under section 80IB was examined for an industrial undertaking engaged in film production, where the Revenue argued that use of hired plant and machinery disqualified the assessee. The Court noted that the identical deduction claim had been accepted in earlier assessment years and followed consistently by the Tribunal, and treated the attempt to disturb that settled position as misconceived. It also found the Supreme Court ruling under section 15C of the 1922 Act inapposite because the real issue was not business reconstruction. The appeal was held not to raise any substantial question of law, and the deduction was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>