<?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 (11) TMI 75 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15786</link>
    <description>Section 80HHC entitlement for a supporting manufacturer was examined in light of the contract with the export house and the absence of a disclaimer certificate. The High Court held that the questions originally framed did not capture the real controversy and reframed the issue to ask whether those factors preclude the assessee from claiming the deduction. It then directed the Tribunal to refer that reframed question under section 256(2) for the Court&#039;s opinion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:01:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 75 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15786</link>
      <description>Section 80HHC entitlement for a supporting manufacturer was examined in light of the contract with the export house and the absence of a disclaimer certificate. The High Court held that the questions originally framed did not capture the real controversy and reframed the issue to ask whether those factors preclude the assessee from claiming the deduction. It then directed the Tribunal to refer that reframed question under section 256(2) for the Court&#039;s opinion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15786</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>