<?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>1964 (10) TMI 21 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49359</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision, ruling that the amendment to the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) did not change the requirement that the business must have been conducted during the accounting year and the machinery used in that business. The appeal was dismissed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (10) TMI 21 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49359</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision, ruling that the amendment to the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) did not change the requirement that the business must have been conducted during the accounting year and the machinery used in that business. The appeal was dismissed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>