<?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 (4) TMI 741 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106234</link>
    <description>Modvat credit was considered in light of an assessee&#039;s claim of depreciation under the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal noted that depreciation claimed in a return was not by itself sufficient to deny credit unless depreciation had actually been allowed by the Income-tax Department, and that revised returns and later income-tax orders could require reconsideration. It directed examination of Rule 57R(5) of the Central Excise Rules and the effect of the amendment to Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, with an opportunity for the assessee to produce supporting documents. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 13:18:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143268" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 741 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106234</link>
      <description>Modvat credit was considered in light of an assessee&#039;s claim of depreciation under the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal noted that depreciation claimed in a return was not by itself sufficient to deny credit unless depreciation had actually been allowed by the Income-tax Department, and that revised returns and later income-tax orders could require reconsideration. It directed examination of Rule 57R(5) of the Central Excise Rules and the effect of the amendment to Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, with an opportunity for the assessee to produce supporting documents. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106234</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>