{"id":46,"date":"2008-04-03T07:21:21","date_gmt":"2008-04-03T07:21:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=46"},"modified":"2008-04-03T07:21:21","modified_gmt":"2008-04-03T07:21:21","slug":"ms-scm-creations-vs-acit-madras-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/ms-scm-creations-vs-acit-madras-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"M\/s SCM Creations vs. ACIT (Madras High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/downloads2\/index.php?scm_creations_rogini_garments_80HHC_80IA.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>In <a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/pdf\/rogini_garments_80HH_80IA_special_bench.pdf\"><strong>ACIT vs. Rogini Garments<\/strong><\/a> 108 ITD 49, the Chennai Special Bench of the ITAT held that in view of s. 80-IA (9), relief under s. 80-IA had to be deducted from the profits and gains before computing relief u\/s 80-HHC. M\/s SCM Creations was an intervener in that case and a common judgement was passed. The Madras has reversed the judgement of the Special bench and held that relief u\/s 80-IA should <strong>not<\/strong> be deducted from profits and gains of business before computing relief u\/s 80-HHC.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In ACIT vs. Rogini Garments 108 ITD 49, the Chennai Special Bench of the ITAT held that in view of s. 80-IA (9), relief under s. 80-IA had to be deducted from the profits and gains before computing relief u\/s &hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more\"> <a class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/ms-scm-creations-vs-acit-madras-high-court\/\"> <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">M\/s SCM Creations vs. ACIT (Madras High Court)<\/span> Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/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":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-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\/46","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=46"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}