<?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 (1) TMI 33 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25304</link>
    <description>Section 80J deduction was denied where the Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that the assessee carried on a new business and that machinery from Shri Vinod Sonpar&#039;s individual business had been transferred to the firm. On those factual findings, section 80J(4)(ii) applied and barred the claim for deduction under section 80J for the relevant assessment year 1975-76. The question was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:53:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64302" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (1) TMI 33 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25304</link>
      <description>Section 80J deduction was denied where the Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that the assessee carried on a new business and that machinery from Shri Vinod Sonpar&#039;s individual business had been transferred to the firm. On those factual findings, section 80J(4)(ii) applied and barred the claim for deduction under section 80J for the relevant assessment year 1975-76. The question was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>