<?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>1992 (8) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21199</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that section 79 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not disqualify the company from claiming the set off as the change in shareholding was considered bona fide and not for tax avoidance purposes. The Court emphasized the importance of factual findings in interpreting tax provisions and considered both clauses (a) and (b) of section 79 as alternative exceptions, ultimately allowing the assessee to offset losses against income despite the change in shareholding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:58:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (8) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21199</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that section 79 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not disqualify the company from claiming the set off as the change in shareholding was considered bona fide and not for tax avoidance purposes. The Court emphasized the importance of factual findings in interpreting tax provisions and considered both clauses (a) and (b) of section 79 as alternative exceptions, ultimately allowing the assessee to offset losses against income despite the change in shareholding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21199</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>