<?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>2005 (1) TMI 80 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10695</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the claim for extra-shift allowance on leased machinery. The court relied on a Supreme Court decision affirming that leasing out machinery entitles the assessee to claim such allowance. Despite the Commissioner&#039;s exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 being indirectly acknowledged, the focus of the judgment was on the entitlement issue, leading to the overturning of the Tribunal&#039;s denial of the allowance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49716" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 80 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10695</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the claim for extra-shift allowance on leased machinery. The court relied on a Supreme Court decision affirming that leasing out machinery entitles the assessee to claim such allowance. Despite the Commissioner&#039;s exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 being indirectly acknowledged, the focus of the judgment was on the entitlement issue, leading to the overturning of the Tribunal&#039;s denial of the allowance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>