<?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>1999 (10) TMI 734 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183780</link>
    <description>The Tribunal denied the deduction claimed under section 80HHC for rough diamonds, overturning the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to allow it. The Tribunal held that rough diamonds do not qualify as processed minerals or ores per the Twelfth Schedule, emphasizing that past decisions do not bind current judgments. Despite arguments that washing rough diamonds constitutes processing, the Tribunal found that rough diamonds are not covered for the deduction. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of clarity on the fate of rough diamonds unsuitable for cutting and polishing but did not remand the case for further verification due to the disallowance of the deduction on other grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:50:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 734 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183780</link>
      <description>The Tribunal denied the deduction claimed under section 80HHC for rough diamonds, overturning the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to allow it. The Tribunal held that rough diamonds do not qualify as processed minerals or ores per the Twelfth Schedule, emphasizing that past decisions do not bind current judgments. Despite arguments that washing rough diamonds constitutes processing, the Tribunal found that rough diamonds are not covered for the deduction. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of clarity on the fate of rough diamonds unsuitable for cutting and polishing but did not remand the case for further verification due to the disallowance of the deduction on other grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>