<?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>1983 (11) TMI 140 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65959</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Income Tax Officer to grant depreciation to the assessee for the godown and reconsider the claim for additional depreciation on new machinery, as the prescribed particulars were not clearly defined. The Tribunal emphasized that possession and payment of consideration were sufficient for depreciation entitlement, even without a formal registered deed, citing relevant case law to support its decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:57:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=104395" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (11) TMI 140 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65959</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Income Tax Officer to grant depreciation to the assessee for the godown and reconsider the claim for additional depreciation on new machinery, as the prescribed particulars were not clearly defined. The Tribunal emphasized that possession and payment of consideration were sufficient for depreciation entitlement, even without a formal registered deed, citing relevant case law to support its decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>