<?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>1994 (10) TMI 99 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62248</link>
    <description>Under the mercantile system, hotel receipts tax collected and statutorily payable accrued on collection, so deduction was allowable despite non-payment in the relevant year because section 43B was not yet applicable. Applying the functional test, the hotel building was treated as an operational apparatus of the hotel business and qualified as plant for higher depreciation. Retrenchment compensation paid to secure possession and effective use of acquired business assets was capital in nature and formed part of the asset cost, so depreciation was allowable on the apportioned amount. The addition of the explained sum under section 68 was not sustainable because the advances, cheque repayments, and bank loan sources were satisfactorily evidenced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:43:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (10) TMI 99 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62248</link>
      <description>Under the mercantile system, hotel receipts tax collected and statutorily payable accrued on collection, so deduction was allowable despite non-payment in the relevant year because section 43B was not yet applicable. Applying the functional test, the hotel building was treated as an operational apparatus of the hotel business and qualified as plant for higher depreciation. Retrenchment compensation paid to secure possession and effective use of acquired business assets was capital in nature and formed part of the asset cost, so depreciation was allowable on the apportioned amount. The addition of the explained sum under section 68 was not sustainable because the advances, cheque repayments, and bank loan sources were satisfactorily evidenced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62248</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>