<?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>1962 (10) TMI 59 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168560</link>
    <description>Unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from earlier years and deemed under section 10(2)(vi) to form part of the current year&#039;s depreciation allowance could be set off against income under other heads. Section 24(1) permitted such set-off once the depreciation was brought into the current year by the deeming provision. Section 24(2) and proviso (b) were treated as governing the priority between carried-forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation, requiring business losses to be adjusted first, but not barring set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against other heads of income. The question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:18:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378500" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (10) TMI 59 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168560</link>
      <description>Unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from earlier years and deemed under section 10(2)(vi) to form part of the current year&#039;s depreciation allowance could be set off against income under other heads. Section 24(1) permitted such set-off once the depreciation was brought into the current year by the deeming provision. Section 24(2) and proviso (b) were treated as governing the priority between carried-forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation, requiring business losses to be adjusted first, but not barring set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against other heads of income. The question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168560</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>