<?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>2011 (12) TMI 48 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207724</link>
    <description>Depreciation under section 32 is allowable where plant and machinery are kept ready for use in a business that remains alive, even if there is no actual operation during the year. On the facts, the business was found to be in a temporary lull rather than permanent closure, as the establishment was maintained, staff were paid, new plant and machinery were acquired, and repairs were incurred on existing machinery. In that setting, the assets were treated as passively used, and actual physical use was not indispensable for depreciation. The earlier accepted principle was applied to the facts found, which were not shown to be perverse.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 07:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181199" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 48 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207724</link>
      <description>Depreciation under section 32 is allowable where plant and machinery are kept ready for use in a business that remains alive, even if there is no actual operation during the year. On the facts, the business was found to be in a temporary lull rather than permanent closure, as the establishment was maintained, staff were paid, new plant and machinery were acquired, and repairs were incurred on existing machinery. In that setting, the assets were treated as passively used, and actual physical use was not indispensable for depreciation. The earlier accepted principle was applied to the facts found, which were not shown to be perverse.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>