<?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>2007 (10) TMI 298 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35398</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing the need for a direct nexus between profits and the essential business activity of the industrial undertaking for deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act. The Court highlighted the legislative intent to promote industrial activity in India through these deductions and rejected claims where profits were not directly derived from the industrial undertaking. The judgment dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 298 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35398</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing the need for a direct nexus between profits and the essential business activity of the industrial undertaking for deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act. The Court highlighted the legislative intent to promote industrial activity in India through these deductions and rejected claims where profits were not directly derived from the industrial undertaking. The judgment dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35398</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>