<?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 (5) TMI 32 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327051</link>
    <description>The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal concerning the interpretation of provisions for computing deductions under section 10A of the IT Act. The court found that the issues raised were adequately covered by a previous judgment in a similar case involving Tata Elxsi Limited. As the matters were already addressed in the prior decision, the court held that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the current appeal. Despite the appeal pending before the Supreme Court, the court maintained its decision based on established legal precedent, allowing for further legal action if the Apex Court provided a different interpretation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 May 2016 00:36:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 32 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327051</link>
      <description>The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal concerning the interpretation of provisions for computing deductions under section 10A of the IT Act. The court found that the issues raised were adequately covered by a previous judgment in a similar case involving Tata Elxsi Limited. As the matters were already addressed in the prior decision, the court held that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the current appeal. Despite the appeal pending before the Supreme Court, the court maintained its decision based on established legal precedent, allowing for further legal action if the Apex Court provided a different interpretation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>