<?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 (10) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23470</link>
    <description>Borrowed capital is not included in the capital employed for relief under section 80J read with rule 19A, because the issue is covered by the Supreme Court ruling in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India, which rejected such inclusion. The Revenue&#039;s question was therefore answered in the negative and in its favour. The assessee&#039;s separate question under section 35C was not answered because no one appeared for the assessee at the hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:16:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62468" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (10) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23470</link>
      <description>Borrowed capital is not included in the capital employed for relief under section 80J read with rule 19A, because the issue is covered by the Supreme Court ruling in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India, which rejected such inclusion. The Revenue&#039;s question was therefore answered in the negative and in its favour. The assessee&#039;s separate question under section 35C was not answered because no one appeared for the assessee at the hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>