<?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 (8) TMI 661 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262744</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal due to a delay of 526 days in re-filing, finding the excuses presented unconvincing. The Court also ruled against the denial of deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, stating that the Assessee, a &#039;100 per cent export oriented unit,&#039; had the necessary approval and that including domestic turnover was permissible. The Court emphasized that such units have both export and domestic turnover and held that the Assessing Officer was unjustified in denying the deduction based solely on the inclusion of domestic turnover. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on both grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 661 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262744</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal due to a delay of 526 days in re-filing, finding the excuses presented unconvincing. The Court also ruled against the denial of deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, stating that the Assessee, a &#039;100 per cent export oriented unit,&#039; had the necessary approval and that including domestic turnover was permissible. The Court emphasized that such units have both export and domestic turnover and held that the Assessing Officer was unjustified in denying the deduction based solely on the inclusion of domestic turnover. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on both grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>