<?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>2020 (8) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397078</link>
    <description>Lease rentals from a specially developed IT park were treated as business income because the real activity was developing and exploiting a specialised business asset, not holding an idle property. On identical facts, the jurisdictional precedent was applied, and the Revenue did not show any contrary factual basis. The receipts were therefore assessable under the business head rather than as income from house property, and the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2024 14:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618914" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397078</link>
      <description>Lease rentals from a specially developed IT park were treated as business income because the real activity was developing and exploiting a specialised business asset, not holding an idle property. On identical facts, the jurisdictional precedent was applied, and the Revenue did not show any contrary factual basis. The receipts were therefore assessable under the business head rather than as income from house property, and the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397078</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>