<?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 (3) TMI 86 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20261</link>
    <description>Relief under section 80J, as modified by rule 19A, was confined to capital employed as on the first day of the computation period. The phrase &quot;as on the first day&quot; meant the capital actually in existence at the commencement of that day, i.e. the opening balance, and not transactions occurring later the same day. The earlier decision on the retrospective amendment did not expand the computation to include intra-day transactions. The deduction therefore had to be computed only on the opening balance on the first day, and the Tribunal was wrong in ignoring rule 19A; the question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:55:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59260" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (3) TMI 86 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20261</link>
      <description>Relief under section 80J, as modified by rule 19A, was confined to capital employed as on the first day of the computation period. The phrase &quot;as on the first day&quot; meant the capital actually in existence at the commencement of that day, i.e. the opening balance, and not transactions occurring later the same day. The earlier decision on the retrospective amendment did not expand the computation to include intra-day transactions. The deduction therefore had to be computed only on the opening balance on the first day, and the Tribunal was wrong in ignoring rule 19A; the question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20261</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>