<?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 (6) TMI 10 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14907</link>
    <description>The High Court reframed the issue to determine if the assessee qualified as a small-scale industrial undertaking under the Explanation to section 32A(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Court directed the Tribunal to reassess the case considering the exclusion of certain assets from the aggregate value of plant and machinery, as per the investment allowance scheme. The Court did not provide a definitive answer but returned the reference for further evaluation, awarding costs to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:48:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 10 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14907</link>
      <description>The High Court reframed the issue to determine if the assessee qualified as a small-scale industrial undertaking under the Explanation to section 32A(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Court directed the Tribunal to reassess the case considering the exclusion of certain assets from the aggregate value of plant and machinery, as per the investment allowance scheme. The Court did not provide a definitive answer but returned the reference for further evaluation, awarding costs to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>