<?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>1992 (8) TMI 126 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63714</link>
    <description>Over-invoicing of imported machinery was not established on the evidence, so reduction of plant and machinery cost was unwarranted. Pre-production expenditure, including foreign technicians&#039; fees and related installation costs, could be capitalised where permitted by settled accounting principles, and the restriction on unapproved foreign technicians&#039; expense was upheld. Disputed excise duty was deductible on accrual despite later assessment and stay of recovery. The first appellate authority could admit additional grounds and grant reliefs such as development rebate, initial depreciation and depreciation on wooden shells and insurance spares where material was already on record. A bona fide change in closing stock valuation was also permissible. The Revenue&#039;s appeal failed, save for a limited correction of a totalling error.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 14:38:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102156" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (8) TMI 126 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63714</link>
      <description>Over-invoicing of imported machinery was not established on the evidence, so reduction of plant and machinery cost was unwarranted. Pre-production expenditure, including foreign technicians&#039; fees and related installation costs, could be capitalised where permitted by settled accounting principles, and the restriction on unapproved foreign technicians&#039; expense was upheld. Disputed excise duty was deductible on accrual despite later assessment and stay of recovery. The first appellate authority could admit additional grounds and grant reliefs such as development rebate, initial depreciation and depreciation on wooden shells and insurance spares where material was already on record. A bona fide change in closing stock valuation was also permissible. The Revenue&#039;s appeal failed, save for a limited correction of a totalling error.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63714</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>