<?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 (12) TMI 644 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371875</link>
    <description>An authorised BSNL franchise operating EPABX/PABX facilities was treated as providing basic telecommunication services because the statutory definition of telecommunication service is broad enough to cover transmission or reception of signals or intelligence of any nature. The activity was carried on under the BSNL arrangement, involved operation of telephone exchange facilities, and qualified as telecommunication service in association with BSNL. The view that receiving commission on behalf of BSNL destroyed the service character of the activity was rejected. On that basis, the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2018 07:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=546612" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 644 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371875</link>
      <description>An authorised BSNL franchise operating EPABX/PABX facilities was treated as providing basic telecommunication services because the statutory definition of telecommunication service is broad enough to cover transmission or reception of signals or intelligence of any nature. The activity was carried on under the BSNL arrangement, involved operation of telephone exchange facilities, and qualified as telecommunication service in association with BSNL. The view that receiving commission on behalf of BSNL destroyed the service character of the activity was rejected. On that basis, the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.</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=371875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>