<?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>2010 (9) TMI 274 -  ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201601</link>
    <description>Replacement of air conditioners under an exchange or buy-back scheme, where no new asset is created in the block of assets, is identified as the central question on capital expenditure treatment. The matter was admitted by the HC and the stated question was directed to be considered at the hearing stage, but no final adjudication was made on whether the expenditure is capital or otherwise.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 23:23:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175206" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 274 -  ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201601</link>
      <description>Replacement of air conditioners under an exchange or buy-back scheme, where no new asset is created in the block of assets, is identified as the central question on capital expenditure treatment. The matter was admitted by the HC and the stated question was directed to be considered at the hearing stage, but no final adjudication was made on whether the expenditure is capital or otherwise.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>