<?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>2018 (3) TMI 46 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356343</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IB should not be denied solely because the unit was acquired through a slump sale instead of amalgamation or demerger. The Tribunal emphasized that the benefit is linked to the undertaking, not the ownership. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 46 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356343</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IB should not be denied solely because the unit was acquired through a slump sale instead of amalgamation or demerger. The Tribunal emphasized that the benefit is linked to the undertaking, not the ownership. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356343</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>