https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219850 The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for 80% depreciation on UPS for both Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08, citing it as an energy-saving device. It also deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure on loans given to subsidiaries for both years, noting that the interest charged was higher than the average borrowing cost. The issue of leave encashment expenses was directed for re-examination. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on excess depreciation on motor vehicles and the reduction of disallowance on interest for interest-free/concessional loans to subsidiary companies. en-us Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219850 The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for 80% depreciation on UPS for both Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08, citing it as an energy-saving device. It also deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure on loans given to subsidiaries for both years, noting that the interest charged was higher than the average borrowing cost. The issue of leave encashment expenses was directed for re-examination. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on excess depreciation on motor vehicles and the reduction of disallowance on interest for interest-free/concessional loans to subsidiary companies. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219850