<?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 (11) TMI 749 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267940</link>
    <description>STPI approval was treated as sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a hundred per cent export oriented undertaking for deduction under section 10B. The Tribunal&#039;s reasoning, as noted in the text, relied on consistent allowance of the benefit in earlier and later years and on co-ordinate bench views that STPI approval meets the statutory approval requirement. On that basis, denial of the deduction only because separate board approval was not obtained was considered unsustainable, and the disallowance was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:56:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 749 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267940</link>
      <description>STPI approval was treated as sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a hundred per cent export oriented undertaking for deduction under section 10B. The Tribunal&#039;s reasoning, as noted in the text, relied on consistent allowance of the benefit in earlier and later years and on co-ordinate bench views that STPI approval meets the statutory approval requirement. On that basis, denial of the deduction only because separate board approval was not obtained was considered unsustainable, and the disallowance was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267940</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>