<?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>1988 (12) TMI 30 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23328</link>
    <description>Weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(a) was considered in relation to expenditure on foreign publicity, but the availability of the deduction depended on whether the amount claimed had in fact been subsidised by an export promotion council. Because the factual basis needed to apply the statutory provision was not clear, the reference was returned unanswered and no substantive determination on entitlement was made.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:17:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62327" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (12) TMI 30 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23328</link>
      <description>Weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(a) was considered in relation to expenditure on foreign publicity, but the availability of the deduction depended on whether the amount claimed had in fact been subsidised by an export promotion council. Because the factual basis needed to apply the statutory provision was not clear, the reference was returned unanswered and no substantive determination on entitlement was made.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>