<?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>2001 (7) TMI 60 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13107</link>
    <description>Section 43A of the Income-tax Act requires exchange-rate fluctuations to be ignored when determining actual cost for development rebate. On that basis, any increase in asset cost attributable to devaluation of the rupee could not support a higher rebate claim. The withdrawal of the rebate through rectification was therefore legally sustainable, because the enhanced cost did not qualify for development rebate under the statute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 13:50:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=52117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 60 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13107</link>
      <description>Section 43A of the Income-tax Act requires exchange-rate fluctuations to be ignored when determining actual cost for development rebate. On that basis, any increase in asset cost attributable to devaluation of the rupee could not support a higher rebate claim. The withdrawal of the rebate through rectification was therefore legally sustainable, because the enhanced cost did not qualify for development rebate under the statute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>