<?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 962 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170741</link>
    <description>Where a statutory expression is undefined, allied enactments and contextual material may be used to construe it according to its ordinary meaning. On that basis, limestone was treated as forest produce and limestone powder manufacturing in Himachal Pradesh was regarded as a non-timber forest product based industry for deduction under section 80-IC. The note also records that agricultural land under cultivation justified some allowance against household expenses, so the estimated household expenditure was reduced by granting only partial benefit of agricultural income. The appeal was therefore partly allowed, with the deduction claim accepted and the household-expense addition sustained only to the reduced extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:01:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=387390" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 962 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170741</link>
      <description>Where a statutory expression is undefined, allied enactments and contextual material may be used to construe it according to its ordinary meaning. On that basis, limestone was treated as forest produce and limestone powder manufacturing in Himachal Pradesh was regarded as a non-timber forest product based industry for deduction under section 80-IC. The note also records that agricultural land under cultivation justified some allowance against household expenses, so the estimated household expenditure was reduced by granting only partial benefit of agricultural income. The appeal was therefore partly allowed, with the deduction claim accepted and the household-expense addition sustained only to the reduced extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>