<?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>2016 (1) TMI 715 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270923</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeals, determining that the assessee, a proprietorship concern, did not qualify for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act as it did not meet the definition of an eligible enterprise. The tribunal did not delve into the classification of the assessee as a developer or contractor, as the primary requirement of being an eligible enterprise was not fulfilled. The decision was rendered on November 6, 2015, in Chennai.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2016 05:55:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=413650" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 715 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270923</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeals, determining that the assessee, a proprietorship concern, did not qualify for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act as it did not meet the definition of an eligible enterprise. The tribunal did not delve into the classification of the assessee as a developer or contractor, as the primary requirement of being an eligible enterprise was not fulfilled. The decision was rendered on November 6, 2015, in Chennai.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>