<?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 (7) TMI 489 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261528</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court noted that the severable parts of the third and fourth provisos to Section 80HHC had been quashed, and substituted the High Court&#039;s direction with a clarificatory instruction that exporters below and above the Rs. 10 crore turnover threshold must be treated alike, given the twin conditions and the fact that Section 80HHC benefit is not available after 1.4.2005. It also recorded that the delay in filing the special leave petition was condoned and the petition disposed of in terms of the cited order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:55:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 489 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261528</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court noted that the severable parts of the third and fourth provisos to Section 80HHC had been quashed, and substituted the High Court&#039;s direction with a clarificatory instruction that exporters below and above the Rs. 10 crore turnover threshold must be treated alike, given the twin conditions and the fact that Section 80HHC benefit is not available after 1.4.2005. It also recorded that the delay in filing the special leave petition was condoned and the petition disposed of in terms of the cited order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261528</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>