<?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 (10) TMI 426 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399452</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal, affirming the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act. The Court determined that the activities undertaken in the SEZ unit constituted &#039;manufacture&#039; as per the SEZ Act, allowing for the claimed deductions. The decision upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and the tribunal, emphasizing the manufacturing process carried out by the assessee and rejecting the Revenue&#039;s arguments against the eligibility for deductions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Oct 2020 16:12:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=624738" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 426 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399452</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal, affirming the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act. The Court determined that the activities undertaken in the SEZ unit constituted &#039;manufacture&#039; as per the SEZ Act, allowing for the claimed deductions. The decision upheld the findings of the CIT(A) and the tribunal, emphasizing the manufacturing process carried out by the assessee and rejecting the Revenue&#039;s arguments against the eligibility for deductions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>