<?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>2009 (3) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32859</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision to reject the claim of the assessee-company for weighted deduction under section 35C of the Income-tax Act on expenses for distillation and transportation services provided to farmers, as well as on depreciation of distillation assets. The Court ruled in favor of the Tribunal, stating that the expenses on distillation and transportation services were not admissible for deduction under Section 35-C, based on previous judgments and findings. The Court also agreed that transportation services provided did not fall under the purview of Section 35-C. The case was disposed of with no orders as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71496" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32859</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision to reject the claim of the assessee-company for weighted deduction under section 35C of the Income-tax Act on expenses for distillation and transportation services provided to farmers, as well as on depreciation of distillation assets. The Court ruled in favor of the Tribunal, stating that the expenses on distillation and transportation services were not admissible for deduction under Section 35-C, based on previous judgments and findings. The Court also agreed that transportation services provided did not fall under the purview of Section 35-C. The case was disposed of with no orders as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>