<?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 1494 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371151</link>
    <description>The High Court confirmed the Tribunal&#039;s remand order concerning the failure to address relief granted under Section 10A by the CIT(A). The appeal was admitted on Substantial Questions of Law, clarifying that the remand was solely for reconsidering relief under Section 80HHC. The Court did not rule on including job work charges in total turnover for Section 10A deduction as the appeal was disposed of based on the first issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2018 07:57:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1494 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371151</link>
      <description>The High Court confirmed the Tribunal&#039;s remand order concerning the failure to address relief granted under Section 10A by the CIT(A). The appeal was admitted on Substantial Questions of Law, clarifying that the remand was solely for reconsidering relief under Section 80HHC. The Court did not rule on including job work charges in total turnover for Section 10A deduction as the appeal was disposed of based on the first issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371151</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>