<?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>1994 (9) TMI 16 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19257</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on all three issues. The processing activities were considered equivalent to operating cold storage plants for the purpose of relief under section 80J. The assessee qualified for a higher development rebate rate of 25% based on processing sea foods falling under Schedule V. The assessee was classified as an industrial company eligible for a reduced tax rate of 55% instead of 65% as applied by the Income-tax Officer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:16:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (9) TMI 16 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19257</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on all three issues. The processing activities were considered equivalent to operating cold storage plants for the purpose of relief under section 80J. The assessee qualified for a higher development rebate rate of 25% based on processing sea foods falling under Schedule V. The assessee was classified as an industrial company eligible for a reduced tax rate of 55% instead of 65% as applied by the Income-tax Officer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19257</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>