<?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>1988 (11) TMI 122 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56364</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the CIT&#039;s jurisdiction under Section 263 but ruled in favor of the assessee regarding relief under Section 80J of the IT Act. The tribunal found that cash assistance and duty drawback were integral to the profits derived from the industrial undertaking, contrary to the CIT&#039;s argument. The tribunal set aside the CIT&#039;s orders on Section 80J relief and restored the ITO&#039;s orders, allowing the assessee relief for both assessment years. The appeals were partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:45:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=94826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (11) TMI 122 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56364</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the CIT&#039;s jurisdiction under Section 263 but ruled in favor of the assessee regarding relief under Section 80J of the IT Act. The tribunal found that cash assistance and duty drawback were integral to the profits derived from the industrial undertaking, contrary to the CIT&#039;s argument. The tribunal set aside the CIT&#039;s orders on Section 80J relief and restored the ITO&#039;s orders, allowing the assessee relief for both assessment years. The appeals were partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>