<?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 (5) TMI 190 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259316</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that stickering income was eligible for Section 80HHC deduction due to its operational nature and value enhancement. The Court found that the stickering income did not fall under the excluded categories of Explanation (baa). The decision was in line with Bombay High Court precedent and the K.R.M. Marine Exports Ltd. ruling, leading to the dismissal of Revenue&#039;s appeals without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 May 2015 07:47:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383975" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 190 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259316</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that stickering income was eligible for Section 80HHC deduction due to its operational nature and value enhancement. The Court found that the stickering income did not fall under the excluded categories of Explanation (baa). The decision was in line with Bombay High Court precedent and the K.R.M. Marine Exports Ltd. ruling, leading to the dismissal of Revenue&#039;s appeals without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>