<?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>1978 (7) TMI 50 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37341</link>
    <description>The court held in favor of the assessee, ruling that half the profits should be added to the capital employed as per rule 19(5) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The court emphasized the legislative intent to extend tax concessions by considering the average capital employed, including the fiction of evenly accrued profits. The decision highlighted the importance of interpreting tax provisions in line with legislative intent to ensure fair tax reliefs based on the average capital employed, incorporating deemed profits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:50:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=75887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (7) TMI 50 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37341</link>
      <description>The court held in favor of the assessee, ruling that half the profits should be added to the capital employed as per rule 19(5) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The court emphasized the legislative intent to extend tax concessions by considering the average capital employed, including the fiction of evenly accrued profits. The decision highlighted the importance of interpreting tax provisions in line with legislative intent to ensure fair tax reliefs based on the average capital employed, incorporating deemed profits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37341</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>