<?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>2008 (8) TMI 995 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291776</link>
    <description>The High Court of Bombay rejected the appeal regarding the interpretation of the term &quot;industrial undertaking&quot; in Section 35D of the Income Tax Act. The court found that the Tribunal correctly considered the common parlance meaning of the term and no question of law arose. The appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2020 16:31:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 995 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291776</link>
      <description>The High Court of Bombay rejected the appeal regarding the interpretation of the term &quot;industrial undertaking&quot; in Section 35D of the Income Tax Act. The court found that the Tribunal correctly considered the common parlance meaning of the term and no question of law arose. The appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291776</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>