<?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>1991 (2) TMI 91 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22661</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee on all three issues: the cost of technical know-how was included in capital computation for relief under section 80J, interest income was considered as business income for relief under section 80-1, and the bank deposit earmarked for expansion was deemed capital employed for relief under section 80J. The High Court&#039;s decisions aligned with relevant rules and precedents, providing relief to the assessee in each instance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:40:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61660" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (2) TMI 91 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22661</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee on all three issues: the cost of technical know-how was included in capital computation for relief under section 80J, interest income was considered as business income for relief under section 80-1, and the bank deposit earmarked for expansion was deemed capital employed for relief under section 80J. The High Court&#039;s decisions aligned with relevant rules and precedents, providing relief to the assessee in each instance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>