<?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>1981 (8) TMI 110 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61950</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin ruled in favor of the assessee in a dispute over reducing the written down value for depreciation calculation by the amount of liabilities waived by a creditor. The Tribunal held that the remission of liabilities by the creditor did not constitute the meeting of the cost of assets by the assessee. This decision clarified the interpretation of relevant provisions and highlighted that the creditor&#039;s actions did not affect the depreciation calculation for the assessee&#039;s assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:32:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (8) TMI 110 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61950</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin ruled in favor of the assessee in a dispute over reducing the written down value for depreciation calculation by the amount of liabilities waived by a creditor. The Tribunal held that the remission of liabilities by the creditor did not constitute the meeting of the cost of assets by the assessee. This decision clarified the interpretation of relevant provisions and highlighted that the creditor&#039;s actions did not affect the depreciation calculation for the assessee&#039;s assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>