<?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 (3) TMI 20 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6127</link>
    <description>Production of design and art works, print material, software for audio visuals, commercial spots, jingles and publicity texts was treated as processing, so the assessee qualified as an industrial company entitled to the concessional rate of tax. The SC also held that the Tribunal&#039;s conclusion was correct on the material before it, and that no referable question of law arose from the finding. The Revenue&#039;s request for a reference therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2018 17:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45210" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 20 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6127</link>
      <description>Production of design and art works, print material, software for audio visuals, commercial spots, jingles and publicity texts was treated as processing, so the assessee qualified as an industrial company entitled to the concessional rate of tax. The SC also held that the Tribunal&#039;s conclusion was correct on the material before it, and that no referable question of law arose from the finding. The Revenue&#039;s request for a reference therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6127</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>