<?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>2013 (7) TMI 872 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169557</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the treatment of expenditure on new technology as revenue or capital. The Tribunal determined that the expenditure on the compact spinning system was revenue in nature based on the impact on the manufacturing process and previous rulings. The decision aligned with precedent and case law, leading to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s argument for capitalization.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2015 11:16:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383002" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 872 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169557</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding the treatment of expenditure on new technology as revenue or capital. The Tribunal determined that the expenditure on the compact spinning system was revenue in nature based on the impact on the manufacturing process and previous rulings. The decision aligned with precedent and case law, leading to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s argument for capitalization.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169557</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>