<?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 (6) TMI 257 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328548</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the subsidies (transport, power, interest, and insurance) to be eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the subsidies were profits derived from the business of manufacturing calcined petroleum coke. The Assessment Order passed by the AO was deemed not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the issue had been settled by the Supreme Court, leading to the quashing of the CIT&#039;s order under Section 263.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 11:42:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430818" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 257 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328548</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the subsidies (transport, power, interest, and insurance) to be eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the subsidies were profits derived from the business of manufacturing calcined petroleum coke. The Assessment Order passed by the AO was deemed not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the issue had been settled by the Supreme Court, leading to the quashing of the CIT&#039;s order under Section 263.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>