<?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>2005 (10) TMI 242 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68397</link>
    <description>Settlement of tax arrears under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 conferred finality only on matters covered by the declaration and the settlement order; it did not create blanket immunity for unrelated issues in the assessment year, so section 263 revision could still operate on issues outside the scheme&#039;s scope. Separately, independently functioning Electronic Yarn Clearer units attached to each winding head were treated as eligible equipment for 100 per cent depreciation because the technical evidence showed each unit worked on its own and the department produced no contrary proof that the system was one integrated machine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 242 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68397</link>
      <description>Settlement of tax arrears under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 conferred finality only on matters covered by the declaration and the settlement order; it did not create blanket immunity for unrelated issues in the assessment year, so section 263 revision could still operate on issues outside the scheme&#039;s scope. Separately, independently functioning Electronic Yarn Clearer units attached to each winding head were treated as eligible equipment for 100 per cent depreciation because the technical evidence showed each unit worked on its own and the department produced no contrary proof that the system was one integrated machine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68397</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>