<?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 (11) TMI 998 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370655</link>
    <description>The ITAT dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s order allowing the Assessee&#039;s claim for deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal affirmed that the Assessee was a developer of infrastructure facilities, not merely a works contractor, making them eligible for the deduction. This decision was based on consistent findings in the Assessee&#039;s favor in earlier assessment years and supported by relevant judicial precedents. The appeal was dismissed, and the CIT(A)&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2018 11:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=543039" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 998 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370655</link>
      <description>The ITAT dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s order allowing the Assessee&#039;s claim for deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal affirmed that the Assessee was a developer of infrastructure facilities, not merely a works contractor, making them eligible for the deduction. This decision was based on consistent findings in the Assessee&#039;s favor in earlier assessment years and supported by relevant judicial precedents. The appeal was dismissed, and the CIT(A)&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370655</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>