<?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>1998 (10) TMI 17 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14850</link>
    <description>The court held that extracting granite and cutting rough edges before export does not constitute &quot;manufacture&quot; or &quot;production&quot; under sections 80J and 80HH of the Income-tax Act. The activity was deemed more akin to mining than manufacturing, lacking the transformative processes indicative of production. As a result, the assessee was not entitled to benefits under the mentioned sections, with the judgment favoring the Revenue over the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:13:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 17 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14850</link>
      <description>The court held that extracting granite and cutting rough edges before export does not constitute &quot;manufacture&quot; or &quot;production&quot; under sections 80J and 80HH of the Income-tax Act. The activity was deemed more akin to mining than manufacturing, lacking the transformative processes indicative of production. As a result, the assessee was not entitled to benefits under the mentioned sections, with the judgment favoring the Revenue over the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>