<?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 (4) TMI 341 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326227</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) decisions regarding the disallowance of deduction u/s 10B and additional depreciation. The Tribunal emphasized the manufacturing activities of the assessee, making them eligible for the deduction and additional depreciation. The revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed as the issues were materially identical for both assessment years. The assessee&#039;s claims were allowed based on their engagement in production activities, leading to the dismissal of the appeals by the revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=423211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 341 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326227</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) decisions regarding the disallowance of deduction u/s 10B and additional depreciation. The Tribunal emphasized the manufacturing activities of the assessee, making them eligible for the deduction and additional depreciation. The revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed as the issues were materially identical for both assessment years. The assessee&#039;s claims were allowed based on their engagement in production activities, leading to the dismissal of the appeals by the revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326227</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>