<?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>2017 (8) TMI 382 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346324</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, affirming that the assessee was eligible for deductions under Section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act. The Court emphasized that the assessee met the conditions for the deduction, including engaging in the manufacture of encryption software and employing the required number of workers. Additionally, the Court ruled that the failure to maintain separate books of account did not invalidate the deduction claim. The Court also held that statements recorded under Section 133A(3)(iii) lacked evidentiary value. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose, as the Tribunal had correctly applied the legal principles and addressed the factual issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 382 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346324</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, affirming that the assessee was eligible for deductions under Section 80 IB of the Income Tax Act. The Court emphasized that the assessee met the conditions for the deduction, including engaging in the manufacture of encryption software and employing the required number of workers. Additionally, the Court ruled that the failure to maintain separate books of account did not invalidate the deduction claim. The Court also held that statements recorded under Section 133A(3)(iii) lacked evidentiary value. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose, as the Tribunal had correctly applied the legal principles and addressed the factual issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>