<?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 (11) TMI 596 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253279</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10A for the entire previous year relevant to the assessment year 2000-01, irrespective of the registration date with STPI. It clarified that the Circular under Section 10B does not apply to Section 10A and that the correct method for computation should consider the entire turnover and profits for the relevant assessment year. The Court dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2015 18:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 596 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253279</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10A for the entire previous year relevant to the assessment year 2000-01, irrespective of the registration date with STPI. It clarified that the Circular under Section 10B does not apply to Section 10A and that the correct method for computation should consider the entire turnover and profits for the relevant assessment year. The Court dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253279</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>