<?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 (11) TMI 104 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19582</link>
    <description>The court held that the assessee-company did not qualify as an investment company based on a single year&#039;s income. The Tribunal&#039;s decision to consider the company&#039;s activities over a longer period was deemed appropriate, leading to the conclusion that the company was not an investment company. Consequently, the additional tax levied under section 104(1) was found inapplicable, with the court ruling in favor of the assessee and ordering no costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:39:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58581" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 104 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19582</link>
      <description>The court held that the assessee-company did not qualify as an investment company based on a single year&#039;s income. The Tribunal&#039;s decision to consider the company&#039;s activities over a longer period was deemed appropriate, leading to the conclusion that the company was not an investment company. Consequently, the additional tax levied under section 104(1) was found inapplicable, with the court ruling in favor of the assessee and ordering no costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>