<?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>2015 (2) TMI 859 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256859</link>
    <description>The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Tribunal&#039;s order and allowing the appeal. It held that supervision charges, fumigation charges, and weigh bridge receipts were integral to warehousing business activities and thus eligible for exemption under Section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act. The Court emphasized the direct nexus of these activities to warehousing operations, affirming their eligibility for exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2015 06:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 859 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256859</link>
      <description>The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Tribunal&#039;s order and allowing the appeal. It held that supervision charges, fumigation charges, and weigh bridge receipts were integral to warehousing business activities and thus eligible for exemption under Section 10(29) of the Income Tax Act. The Court emphasized the direct nexus of these activities to warehousing operations, affirming their eligibility for exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>