{"id":39,"date":"2008-03-15T18:30:29","date_gmt":"2008-03-15T18:30:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=39"},"modified":"2008-03-15T18:30:29","modified_gmt":"2008-03-15T18:30:29","slug":"synco-industries-vs-ito-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/synco-industries-vs-ito-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Synco Industries vs. ITO (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/downloads2\/index.php?synco_chapter_VIA_loss.pdf\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.itatonline.org\/images\/download.gif?w=605\" class=\"alignright\" border=\"0\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>(a) If the assessee has suffered a loss in one unit, the same has to be set-off against the profits of the undertaking eligible for deduction u\/s 80IA etc and if the resultant figure is a loss, no deduction under Chapter VI-A is allowable;<\/p>\n<p>(b) Where the predominant majority of the High Courts have taken a certain view on the interpretation of certain provisions, the Supreme Court would lean in favour of the predominant view.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>If the assessee has suffered a loss in one unit, the same has to be set-off against the profits of the undertaking eligible for deduction u\/s 80IA etc and if the resultant figure is a loss, no deduction under Chapter VI-A is allowable;<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/synco-industries-vs-ito-supreme-court\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}