<?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>2016 (6) TMI 1463 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307276</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the Revenue&#039;s position on the allocation of expenditure, remanding the matter for reassessment. The deduction for obsolete stock was allowed as supported by evidence. Provision for expenses and reserves for warranty were deemed allowable. The computation of deduction under Section 80HHE was considered academic, with future claims to be assessed in line with the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Apr 2023 21:45:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=709579" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 1463 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307276</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the Revenue&#039;s position on the allocation of expenditure, remanding the matter for reassessment. The deduction for obsolete stock was allowed as supported by evidence. Provision for expenses and reserves for warranty were deemed allowable. The computation of deduction under Section 80HHE was considered academic, with future claims to be assessed in line with the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>