<?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>1997 (9) TMI 71 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16973</link>
    <description>Engineering and design charges earned by a manufacturing industrial undertaking were treated as part of the manufacturing process because the activity was connected only with the assessee&#039;s own products, giving the receipts the required nexus with the undertaking; they were therefore regarded as profits derived from the industrial undertaking for deduction under section 80-I. Receipts such as rent, interest, scrap and exchange difference were treated as raising a question of law on their nexus with the undertaking, and the Tribunal was required to refer a reframed question under section 256(2) because the exact figures and heads of income had not been clearly found.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:16:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 71 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16973</link>
      <description>Engineering and design charges earned by a manufacturing industrial undertaking were treated as part of the manufacturing process because the activity was connected only with the assessee&#039;s own products, giving the receipts the required nexus with the undertaking; they were therefore regarded as profits derived from the industrial undertaking for deduction under section 80-I. Receipts such as rent, interest, scrap and exchange difference were treated as raising a question of law on their nexus with the undertaking, and the Tribunal was required to refer a reframed question under section 256(2) because the exact figures and heads of income had not been clearly found.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16973</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>