<?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>Section 9 – Royalty - to hold that ‘ship’ is an ‘equipment’ honorable Madras High Court relied on definition of ‘plant’ as per section 43(3) –in view of author, a reconsideration is desirable.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=5449</link>
    <description>The article examines whether a ship qualifies as &quot;equipment&quot; for royalty under the income tax royalty explanation, noting the Madras High Court&#039;s reliance on the inclusive definition of &quot;plant&quot; (which expressly includes ships) to construe &quot;equipment&quot; broadly. It argues that the definition of plant appears in the computation chapter for depreciation and that ships are treated as a separate class in depreciation rules; on ordinary and statutory grounds a ship functions as a floating establishment housing many subordinate machines and therefore does not comfortably fit the narrower categories of industrial, commercial or scientific &quot;equipment,&quot; warranting reconsideration of the Court&#039;s approach.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 07:05:19 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 07:05:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=343471" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Section 9 – Royalty - to hold that ‘ship’ is an ‘equipment’ honorable Madras High Court relied on definition of ‘plant’ as per section 43(3) –in view of author, a reconsideration is desirable.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=5449</link>
      <description>The article examines whether a ship qualifies as &quot;equipment&quot; for royalty under the income tax royalty explanation, noting the Madras High Court&#039;s reliance on the inclusive definition of &quot;plant&quot; (which expressly includes ships) to construe &quot;equipment&quot; broadly. It argues that the definition of plant appears in the computation chapter for depreciation and that ships are treated as a separate class in depreciation rules; on ordinary and statutory grounds a ship functions as a floating establishment housing many subordinate machines and therefore does not comfortably fit the narrower categories of industrial, commercial or scientific &quot;equipment,&quot; warranting reconsideration of the Court&#039;s approach.</description>
      <category>Articles</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 07:05:19 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=5449</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>