<?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 (6) TMI 28 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16000</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, confirming their entitlement to the development rebate at the higher rate of 25% for leased computers used in business activities. The court emphasized the significance of adhering to legal precedents and interpreting tax laws accurately to ascertain eligibility for tax benefits. The jurisdiction issue under section 263 was not addressed as it became moot following the resolution of the first issue in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:41:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (6) TMI 28 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16000</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, confirming their entitlement to the development rebate at the higher rate of 25% for leased computers used in business activities. The court emphasized the significance of adhering to legal precedents and interpreting tax laws accurately to ascertain eligibility for tax benefits. The jurisdiction issue under section 263 was not addressed as it became moot following the resolution of the first issue in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16000</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>