<?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 (2) TMI 79 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243477</link>
    <description>The Gujarat High Court upheld the ITAT&#039;s decision allowing 100% depreciation on temporary structures for A.Y. 2002-03, emphasizing the temporary nature of the structures and the limited rights of the taxpayer over the land. The Court referred to relevant legal precedents and concluded that scrutinizing the temporary nature of the structures for depreciation purposes would be revenue neutral. Additionally, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the deduction under section 80G(2)(d), highlighting the potential for double taxation if the donor and donee were both taxed, ultimately dismissing the tax appeal against the Revenue on both issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2014 08:26:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 79 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243477</link>
      <description>The Gujarat High Court upheld the ITAT&#039;s decision allowing 100% depreciation on temporary structures for A.Y. 2002-03, emphasizing the temporary nature of the structures and the limited rights of the taxpayer over the land. The Court referred to relevant legal precedents and concluded that scrutinizing the temporary nature of the structures for depreciation purposes would be revenue neutral. Additionally, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the deduction under section 80G(2)(d), highlighting the potential for double taxation if the donor and donee were both taxed, ultimately dismissing the tax appeal against the Revenue on both issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>