<?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>1989 (1) TMI 176 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66517</link>
    <description>Ownership for depreciation purposes is not confined to a completed registered conveyance where the assessee has purchased and is using business premises; beneficial ownership and user were treated as sufficient, so depreciation was allowed. A diagnostic centre using plant and machinery with qualified assistance was treated as carrying on business that produced commercially valuable outputs such as reports, X-ray pictures, scans and ECGs; those outputs were regarded as articles or things, so the machinery qualified for investment allowance. The article accordingly states that both the depreciation claim and the investment allowance claim were upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Feb 2011 12:50:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=104952" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (1) TMI 176 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66517</link>
      <description>Ownership for depreciation purposes is not confined to a completed registered conveyance where the assessee has purchased and is using business premises; beneficial ownership and user were treated as sufficient, so depreciation was allowed. A diagnostic centre using plant and machinery with qualified assistance was treated as carrying on business that produced commercially valuable outputs such as reports, X-ray pictures, scans and ECGs; those outputs were regarded as articles or things, so the machinery qualified for investment allowance. The article accordingly states that both the depreciation claim and the investment allowance claim were upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>