<?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>1959 (2) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49603</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision that business losses incurred in Cochin could be set off against profits made in Travancore under the Travancore Income-tax Act. The Court clarified that the proviso to the relevant tax law did not restrict such set-offs across different states. The second issue regarding the assessment year for one of the assessees was not addressed by the Supreme Court, leaving it open for further action. The appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax were dismissed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 18:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (2) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49603</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision that business losses incurred in Cochin could be set off against profits made in Travancore under the Travancore Income-tax Act. The Court clarified that the proviso to the relevant tax law did not restrict such set-offs across different states. The second issue regarding the assessment year for one of the assessees was not addressed by the Supreme Court, leaving it open for further action. The appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax were dismissed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>