<?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 (9) TMI 185 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70392</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal and upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner&#039;s decision to grant the investment allowance to the assessee. It determined that the construction business qualified as an industrial undertaking under the Finance Act, 1983, and classified centering sheets as part of plant and machinery for investment allowance purposes. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s argument that the denial of depreciation should preclude investment allowance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:44:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 185 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70392</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal and upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner&#039;s decision to grant the investment allowance to the assessee. It determined that the construction business qualified as an industrial undertaking under the Finance Act, 1983, and classified centering sheets as part of plant and machinery for investment allowance purposes. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s argument that the denial of depreciation should preclude investment allowance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>