<?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 (11) TMI 46 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37674</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decisions on both issues. It found that the Tribunal did not misdirect itself regarding the reasonableness of salaries under section 40(c) and correctly upheld the disallowance of the development rebate, as the machinery was not intended for hiring out as a business activity. Both questions were answered in favor of the revenue and against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 11:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=76220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (11) TMI 46 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37674</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decisions on both issues. It found that the Tribunal did not misdirect itself regarding the reasonableness of salaries under section 40(c) and correctly upheld the disallowance of the development rebate, as the machinery was not intended for hiring out as a business activity. Both questions were answered in favor of the revenue and against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>