<?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>1977 (12) TMI 144 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192652</link>
    <description>The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal allowed the full deduction under Section 80J, the provision for gratuity, and the deduction for disputed water charges based on the settled amount. The Tribunal disallowed the deduction for the surtax liability and the development rebate for process and designs not put to use. The issue of increased development rebate for priority industry was remanded to the ITO for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2017 14:13:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=471507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1977 (12) TMI 144 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192652</link>
      <description>The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal allowed the full deduction under Section 80J, the provision for gratuity, and the deduction for disputed water charges based on the settled amount. The Tribunal disallowed the deduction for the surtax liability and the development rebate for process and designs not put to use. The issue of increased development rebate for priority industry was remanded to the ITO for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 1977 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>