<?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 (11) TMI 679 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253362</link>
    <description>Beneficial ownership and business use may support depreciation on office premises even where formal conveyance remains incomplete; on those facts, the absence of a registered deed was not treated as decisive. Expenditure on installing an electricity sub-station was treated as allowable because it was incurred wholly for business purposes, and the alternative claim for revenue deduction was accepted despite the asset being owned by the electricity board. Interest on advances was not brought to tax separately where it had consistently been reduced from project cost and capitalised as work-in-progress. Section 43B(f) was held inapplicable because the leave encashment amount was not claimed as a deductible liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 679 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253362</link>
      <description>Beneficial ownership and business use may support depreciation on office premises even where formal conveyance remains incomplete; on those facts, the absence of a registered deed was not treated as decisive. Expenditure on installing an electricity sub-station was treated as allowable because it was incurred wholly for business purposes, and the alternative claim for revenue deduction was accepted despite the asset being owned by the electricity board. Interest on advances was not brought to tax separately where it had consistently been reduced from project cost and capitalised as work-in-progress. Section 43B(f) was held inapplicable because the leave encashment amount was not claimed as a deductible liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>