<?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>2006 (3) TMI 670 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120215</link>
    <description>Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is sustained where the record available at the time of examination shows that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, including an unsupportable allowance of higher depreciation. Mobile cranes hired out in business were treated as falling within the depreciation entry for motor lorries used in the business of running them on hire, because their functional and structural characteristics aligned with that category. Depreciation at 40% was therefore available, and the contrary 25% rate for plant and machinery did not apply. The commentary records partial relief, with revisional interference upheld but the higher depreciation claim allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 12:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 670 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120215</link>
      <description>Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is sustained where the record available at the time of examination shows that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, including an unsupportable allowance of higher depreciation. Mobile cranes hired out in business were treated as falling within the depreciation entry for motor lorries used in the business of running them on hire, because their functional and structural characteristics aligned with that category. Depreciation at 40% was therefore available, and the contrary 25% rate for plant and machinery did not apply. The commentary records partial relief, with revisional interference upheld but the higher depreciation claim allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>