<?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>1996 (3) TMI 28 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17622</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the Department, holding that the assessee was not considered to be manufacturing textiles within the relevant entries, thus not qualifying for higher development rebate and initial depreciation. Additionally, relief under section 80J should be granted only after setting off unabsorbed development rebate. The Tribunal&#039;s decisions were overturned, and leave for appeal to the Supreme Court was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:49:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 28 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17622</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the Department, holding that the assessee was not considered to be manufacturing textiles within the relevant entries, thus not qualifying for higher development rebate and initial depreciation. Additionally, relief under section 80J should be granted only after setting off unabsorbed development rebate. The Tribunal&#039;s decisions were overturned, and leave for appeal to the Supreme Court was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17622</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>