<?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 (12) TMI 565 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254222</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to allow depreciation to the assessee, despite the revenue&#039;s challenge. The Court clarified that Section 44 AD did not apply to the assessee due to their gross receipts exceeding the threshold. Additionally, the Court found the reduction of the net profit rate from 10% to 6% justified based on past rates and upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, dismissing the appeal as no substantial question of law arose from the issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2014 06:29:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371148" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 565 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254222</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to allow depreciation to the assessee, despite the revenue&#039;s challenge. The Court clarified that Section 44 AD did not apply to the assessee due to their gross receipts exceeding the threshold. Additionally, the Court found the reduction of the net profit rate from 10% to 6% justified based on past rates and upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, dismissing the appeal as no substantial question of law arose from the issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254222</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>