<?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 1224 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328243</link>
    <description>The amended Section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act was read to make the local authority&#039;s completion certificate the relevant date for completion of construction, and that express Explanation could not be controlled by the Municipal Corporation Act. The cited Supreme Court precedent was held inapplicable because it did not consider such an express statutory explanation. A request for liberty to pursue another remedy could not be granted in review, and differing factual assertions in one petition did not alter the common interpretation already adopted in the main judgment. No ground for review was therefore made out, and the review petitions were liable to be dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 May 2016 16:56:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 1224 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328243</link>
      <description>The amended Section 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act was read to make the local authority&#039;s completion certificate the relevant date for completion of construction, and that express Explanation could not be controlled by the Municipal Corporation Act. The cited Supreme Court precedent was held inapplicable because it did not consider such an express statutory explanation. A request for liberty to pursue another remedy could not be granted in review, and differing factual assertions in one petition did not alter the common interpretation already adopted in the main judgment. No ground for review was therefore made out, and the review petitions were liable to be dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328243</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>