<?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>2015 (1) TMI 191 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254992</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the CIT&#039;s order to focus solely on the allowability of depreciation on two dredgers. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the order passed under section 263 but clarified that the assessment order was not erroneous regarding the applicability of section 40(a)(ia) on equipment contractual charges.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 10:12:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373301" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 191 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254992</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the CIT&#039;s order to focus solely on the allowability of depreciation on two dredgers. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the order passed under section 263 but clarified that the assessment order was not erroneous regarding the applicability of section 40(a)(ia) on equipment contractual charges.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>