<?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>1995 (7) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19061</link>
    <description>Investment allowance under section 32A was recognised for an ice factory installed along with a cold storage, the Court distinguishing the Revenue&#039;s cited precedent on that factual basis. The Tribunal&#039;s grant of the statutory benefit was therefore upheld for the ice factory. On the reference issue, the Court found that the Tribunal&#039;s order did not raise any referable question of law, so the application under section 256(2) could not be entertained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:55:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58060" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (7) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19061</link>
      <description>Investment allowance under section 32A was recognised for an ice factory installed along with a cold storage, the Court distinguishing the Revenue&#039;s cited precedent on that factual basis. The Tribunal&#039;s grant of the statutory benefit was therefore upheld for the ice factory. On the reference issue, the Court found that the Tribunal&#039;s order did not raise any referable question of law, so the application under section 256(2) could not be entertained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19061</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>