<?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>2014 (1) TMI 81 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241856</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07 &amp;amp; 2007-08. The Tribunal ruled that the depreciation had already been accounted for in the separate accounts of another entity, Universal Exports, despite it being a proprietary concern of the assessee. As Universal Exports had its own tax considerations, the assessee could not claim depreciation twice on the same profits. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the lower authorities&#039; decisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2014 08:19:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341520" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 81 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241856</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07 &amp;amp; 2007-08. The Tribunal ruled that the depreciation had already been accounted for in the separate accounts of another entity, Universal Exports, despite it being a proprietary concern of the assessee. As Universal Exports had its own tax considerations, the assessee could not claim depreciation twice on the same profits. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the lower authorities&#039; decisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241856</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>