<?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 (3) TMI 29 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24843</link>
    <description>The court held that the Government of India is not considered a &#039;person resident in India&#039; for investment allowance and relief purposes under sections 32A and 80J. Consequently, the assessee was deemed eligible to claim both benefits, as the ships acquired from the Government did not disqualify them from claiming the allowances. The court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (3) TMI 29 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24843</link>
      <description>The court held that the Government of India is not considered a &#039;person resident in India&#039; for investment allowance and relief purposes under sections 32A and 80J. Consequently, the assessee was deemed eligible to claim both benefits, as the ships acquired from the Government did not disqualify them from claiming the allowances. The court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>