<?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>1983 (4) TMI 32 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28210</link>
    <description>The court affirmed that the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under section 80C for the premiums paid by the wife from her income included in the assessee&#039;s total income. The court held that the wife&#039;s income should be treated as the assessee&#039;s income for the purpose of section 80C, aligning with the legislative intent to incentivize savings. The Revenue&#039;s argument was rejected, and the court directed the Revenue to pay the assessee&#039;s costs, favoring the assessee in the case outcome.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:55:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (4) TMI 32 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28210</link>
      <description>The court affirmed that the assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under section 80C for the premiums paid by the wife from her income included in the assessee&#039;s total income. The court held that the wife&#039;s income should be treated as the assessee&#039;s income for the purpose of section 80C, aligning with the legislative intent to incentivize savings. The Revenue&#039;s argument was rejected, and the court directed the Revenue to pay the assessee&#039;s costs, favoring the assessee in the case outcome.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28210</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>