<?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>1981 (2) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29562</link>
    <description>The court interpreted the term &quot;such profits&quot; under Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as referring to profits of priority industries without deducting losses from non-priority businesses. It held that deductions should be based solely on the profits of the priority industry. The court rejected the argument to include losses in computing deductions, emphasizing the legislative intent to provide relief to priority industries. The decision favored the assessee, with each party bearing their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:17:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68559" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (2) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29562</link>
      <description>The court interpreted the term &quot;such profits&quot; under Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as referring to profits of priority industries without deducting losses from non-priority businesses. It held that deductions should be based solely on the profits of the priority industry. The court rejected the argument to include losses in computing deductions, emphasizing the legislative intent to provide relief to priority industries. The decision favored the assessee, with each party bearing their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>