<?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 (9) TMI 444 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263776</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the assessee did not violate the conditions for claiming deduction under S.80IB(10). It directed the AO to allow the deduction, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order. The Tribunal noted that even if there were violations in one or two units, the deduction should be proportionately disallowed, not entirely. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:18:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396520" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 444 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263776</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the assessee did not violate the conditions for claiming deduction under S.80IB(10). It directed the AO to allow the deduction, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order. The Tribunal noted that even if there were violations in one or two units, the deduction should be proportionately disallowed, not entirely. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263776</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>