<?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 (3) TMI 98 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16598</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the assessee was not entitled to the development rebate and investment allowance as the necessary reserve was not created within the required timeframe, i.e., before the assessment order. The Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow the rebate based on subsequent amendments was overturned, reaffirming the principle that statutory requirements must be met at the time of assessment. The tax case was disposed of with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:07:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 98 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16598</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the assessee was not entitled to the development rebate and investment allowance as the necessary reserve was not created within the required timeframe, i.e., before the assessment order. The Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow the rebate based on subsequent amendments was overturned, reaffirming the principle that statutory requirements must be met at the time of assessment. The tax case was disposed of with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>