<?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>1984 (3) TMI 75 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55105</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the computation of relief under s. 80J for the assessment year 1975-76. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to allow the carry forward of relief for the assessee, based on interpretations from Allahabad and Madras High Courts, emphasizing that quantification in the initial assessment year is not mandatory if the industrial undertaking suffered a loss. Previous court decisions supported this approach, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93568" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (3) TMI 75 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55105</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the computation of relief under s. 80J for the assessment year 1975-76. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to allow the carry forward of relief for the assessee, based on interpretations from Allahabad and Madras High Courts, emphasizing that quantification in the initial assessment year is not mandatory if the industrial undertaking suffered a loss. Previous court decisions supported this approach, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55105</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>