<?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>1999 (2) TMI 99 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63492</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer was not justified in adding back the depreciation on the revalued amount of assets for computing book profit under section 115J. The CIT (Appeals) should have deleted the addition. Therefore, Ground Nos. 3 and 4 of the assessee&#039;s appeal were allowed, and the appeal was partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:41:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=101934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 99 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63492</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer was not justified in adding back the depreciation on the revalued amount of assets for computing book profit under section 115J. The CIT (Appeals) should have deleted the addition. Therefore, Ground Nos. 3 and 4 of the assessee&#039;s appeal were allowed, and the appeal was partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>