<?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>2019 (8) TMI 1924 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460772</link>
    <description>Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held inapplicable to banking companies. The Bombay High Court followed its earlier ruling in CIT-LTU v. Union Bank of India and reiterated that Minimum Alternate Tax under this provision does not extend to banks. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:32:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=799022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 1924 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460772</link>
      <description>Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held inapplicable to banking companies. The Bombay High Court followed its earlier ruling in CIT-LTU v. Union Bank of India and reiterated that Minimum Alternate Tax under this provision does not extend to banks. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>