<?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>1993 (9) TMI 35 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19960</link>
    <description>The court ruled against the assessee, holding that weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for packing expenses incurred in India was not permissible. The court emphasized that packing expenses did not align with the specified activities for promoting export business outlined in the relevant sub-clauses of section 35B(1). Therefore, the court concluded that the assessee was not entitled to the claimed deduction, emphasizing the need for a strict interpretation of the statutory provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:12:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58959" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (9) TMI 35 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19960</link>
      <description>The court ruled against the assessee, holding that weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for packing expenses incurred in India was not permissible. The court emphasized that packing expenses did not align with the specified activities for promoting export business outlined in the relevant sub-clauses of section 35B(1). Therefore, the court concluded that the assessee was not entitled to the claimed deduction, emphasizing the need for a strict interpretation of the statutory provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>