<?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>1999 (9) TMI 58 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15504</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled that the partnership firm engaged in pile foundation work did not qualify as an industrial undertaking for deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized the distinction between &quot;production&quot; and &quot;manufacture,&quot; stating that construction activities like pile foundation work did not constitute manufacturing or production processes. Referring to precedent, the court held that the firm&#039;s activities did not involve manufacturing or production, leading to a decision in favor of the Revenue. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction for profits from construction activities, resolving the case without addressing the manufacturing aspect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:16:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 58 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15504</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled that the partnership firm engaged in pile foundation work did not qualify as an industrial undertaking for deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized the distinction between &quot;production&quot; and &quot;manufacture,&quot; stating that construction activities like pile foundation work did not constitute manufacturing or production processes. Referring to precedent, the court held that the firm&#039;s activities did not involve manufacturing or production, leading to a decision in favor of the Revenue. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction for profits from construction activities, resolving the case without addressing the manufacturing aspect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15504</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>