<?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>1995 (8) TMI 89 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60920</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that the 40% profit rate under Section 44AC should not be applied to sales under the L-14 license as they were subsequent sales from the L-13 licensee. The CIT(A)&#039;s orders were overturned, and the Assessing Officer&#039;s additions were reinstated. The Tribunal did not address the specific additions made by the AO, focusing solely on the incorrect application of the 40% profit rate under Section 44AC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 16:16:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99367" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (8) TMI 89 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60920</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that the 40% profit rate under Section 44AC should not be applied to sales under the L-14 license as they were subsequent sales from the L-13 licensee. The CIT(A)&#039;s orders were overturned, and the Assessing Officer&#039;s additions were reinstated. The Tribunal did not address the specific additions made by the AO, focusing solely on the incorrect application of the 40% profit rate under Section 44AC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>