<?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>2002 (10) TMI 240 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64816</link>
    <description>Depreciation was held allowable on godowns constructed through the Central Warehousing Corporation because the tripartite arrangement showed the assessee retained present ownership, the corporation only managed the depots, and no depreciation was claimed by the corporation. A contemplated future transfer did not alter the ownership position during the relevant years, so the disallowance was deleted. On depreciation for building and plant and machinery said to have been not put to use, the assessment record and fixed asset notes were inconsistent and required reconciliation. The matter was therefore restored for fresh verification and adjudication on the factual use of the assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 240 - ITAT DELHI-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64816</link>
      <description>Depreciation was held allowable on godowns constructed through the Central Warehousing Corporation because the tripartite arrangement showed the assessee retained present ownership, the corporation only managed the depots, and no depreciation was claimed by the corporation. A contemplated future transfer did not alter the ownership position during the relevant years, so the disallowance was deleted. On depreciation for building and plant and machinery said to have been not put to use, the assessment record and fixed asset notes were inconsistent and required reconciliation. The matter was therefore restored for fresh verification and adjudication on the factual use of the assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>