<?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 (8) TMI 278 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262361</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the appeal in favor of the assessee, upholding the right of the assessee to choose whether or not to claim depreciation. The court held that the depreciation claim is optional and cannot be imposed if not desired by the assessee, based on settled legal position and precedents. The decision affirmed the principle that authorities were correct in not allowing depreciation that the assessee did not wish to claim, resulting in the appeal being decided against the revenue and in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2015 06:12:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 278 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262361</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the appeal in favor of the assessee, upholding the right of the assessee to choose whether or not to claim depreciation. The court held that the depreciation claim is optional and cannot be imposed if not desired by the assessee, based on settled legal position and precedents. The decision affirmed the principle that authorities were correct in not allowing depreciation that the assessee did not wish to claim, resulting in the appeal being decided against the revenue and in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>