<?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>1942 (7) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168554</link>
    <description>Income received by trustees for a defined class of creditors was assessable in the trustees&#039; hands, because the creditors were the real beneficiaries and Section 41(1) applied to income receivable on their behalf. The contention that the partners remained the beneficiaries was rejected, and the assessment on the trustees was upheld. Unabsorbed depreciation relating to businesses that had already ceased and whose assets were disposed of could not be carried forward to offset profits of a separate continuing saw mill business, because depreciation under Section 10(2)(vi) was confined to a business carried on and Section 24 did not apply to discontinued businesses. The depreciation set-off claim was disallowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 1942 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:53:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378495" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1942 (7) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168554</link>
      <description>Income received by trustees for a defined class of creditors was assessable in the trustees&#039; hands, because the creditors were the real beneficiaries and Section 41(1) applied to income receivable on their behalf. The contention that the partners remained the beneficiaries was rejected, and the assessment on the trustees was upheld. Unabsorbed depreciation relating to businesses that had already ceased and whose assets were disposed of could not be carried forward to offset profits of a separate continuing saw mill business, because depreciation under Section 10(2)(vi) was confined to a business carried on and Section 24 did not apply to discontinued businesses. The depreciation set-off claim was disallowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 1942 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>