<?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>1997 (7) TMI 653 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171786</link>
    <description>Mounted gas cylinders were treated as separate gas cylinders, not an integral part of the vehicle, so higher depreciation was allowable on that asset class, subject to use of the tanker during the year. The interest disallowance under section 40A(2) was upheld because the appellate finding on reasonableness did not warrant further interference. Expenditure disallowed under section 37(3) was deleted where the articles did not bear the assessee&#039;s logo and were treated as business expenditure. On dissolution, the difference between written down value and revalued amount of capital assets was not taxable under section 28(iv), and depreciation on the enhanced value was accepted. Relief under section 80G was to be considered if positive income was ultimately assessed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Aug 2015 15:44:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 653 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171786</link>
      <description>Mounted gas cylinders were treated as separate gas cylinders, not an integral part of the vehicle, so higher depreciation was allowable on that asset class, subject to use of the tanker during the year. The interest disallowance under section 40A(2) was upheld because the appellate finding on reasonableness did not warrant further interference. Expenditure disallowed under section 37(3) was deleted where the articles did not bear the assessee&#039;s logo and were treated as business expenditure. On dissolution, the difference between written down value and revalued amount of capital assets was not taxable under section 28(iv), and depreciation on the enhanced value was accepted. Relief under section 80G was to be considered if positive income was ultimately assessed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171786</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>