<?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 466 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217528</link>
    <description>The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The issues regarding disallowance of validation charges paid to Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. and testing charges paid to European Testing Centre (ETC) Ireland were remitted back to the AO for reconsideration. The denial of depreciation on plant and machinery acquired during the financial year 1997-98 was partially upheld, with directions to claim depreciation on the balance of the block of assets. The erroneous levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the IT Act was remanded to the AO for review. Penalty proceedings initiation was deemed premature and rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190903" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 466 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217528</link>
      <description>The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The issues regarding disallowance of validation charges paid to Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. and testing charges paid to European Testing Centre (ETC) Ireland were remitted back to the AO for reconsideration. The denial of depreciation on plant and machinery acquired during the financial year 1997-98 was partially upheld, with directions to claim depreciation on the balance of the block of assets. The erroneous levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the IT Act was remanded to the AO for review. Penalty proceedings initiation was deemed premature and rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217528</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>