<?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>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision, ruling that the appellant was not entitled to a special deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the appellant&#039;s activities constituted trading in controlled commodities, and the commission received was considered part of the profit from these trading activities, rather than payment solely for letting the godowns. The appeal was dismissed without any costs being ordered.</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>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision, ruling that the appellant was not entitled to a special deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the appellant&#039;s activities constituted trading in controlled commodities, and the commission received was considered part of the profit from these trading activities, rather than payment solely for letting the godowns. The appeal was dismissed without any costs being ordered.</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>