<?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>2012 (10) TMI 57 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217104</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax(A)&#039;s decision that depreciation should be deducted to determine the net income of charitable trusts and societies. The Tribunal found that allowing both capital expenditure and depreciation on the same assets did not constitute double deduction, as depreciation is a necessary deduction on commercial principles. The original order allowing the claim of depreciation was upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was deemed meritless.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190482" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 57 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217104</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax(A)&#039;s decision that depreciation should be deducted to determine the net income of charitable trusts and societies. The Tribunal found that allowing both capital expenditure and depreciation on the same assets did not constitute double deduction, as depreciation is a necessary deduction on commercial principles. The original order allowing the claim of depreciation was upheld, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was deemed meritless.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217104</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>