<?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 1211 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400237</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the ITAT&#039;s decision favoring the assessee. The Tribunal ruled that Section 14A, read with Rule 8D, does not apply when no exempt income is received, even with investments in subsidiaries. Additionally, the Tribunal granted depreciation relief under Section 43A, which was upheld. The Substantial Questions of Law were resolved against the Revenue, with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2024 11:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 1211 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400237</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the ITAT&#039;s decision favoring the assessee. The Tribunal ruled that Section 14A, read with Rule 8D, does not apply when no exempt income is received, even with investments in subsidiaries. Additionally, the Tribunal granted depreciation relief under Section 43A, which was upheld. The Substantial Questions of Law were resolved against the Revenue, with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400237</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>