<?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 (7) TMI 11 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34151</link>
    <description>Section 80P(2)(e) applies only where income is derived from letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or marketing of commodities, and the assessee bears the burden of proving that character. On the facts, the commission received from storage and distribution of controlled commodities formed part of the commercial margin between issue price and sale price, not rent for use of godowns. The assessee also treated the commodities as part of its own trading stock, making the transaction one of its own trading operations rather than storage on behalf of another. The Court distinguished South Arcot on its facts and held that the amount did not qualify for deduction under section 80P(2)(e).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 May 2016 16:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72778" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 11 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34151</link>
      <description>Section 80P(2)(e) applies only where income is derived from letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or marketing of commodities, and the assessee bears the burden of proving that character. On the facts, the commission received from storage and distribution of controlled commodities formed part of the commercial margin between issue price and sale price, not rent for use of godowns. The assessee also treated the commodities as part of its own trading stock, making the transaction one of its own trading operations rather than storage on behalf of another. The Court distinguished South Arcot on its facts and held that the amount did not qualify for deduction under section 80P(2)(e).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34151</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>