<?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>1935 (7) TMI 21 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173955</link>
    <description>Depreciation under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 required actual user of the buildings, machinery, plant and furniture during the relevant year. Mere maintenance of the assets for business, or their availability for use, did not satisfy the statutory phrase &quot;used for the purposes of the business&quot;. Because the factory and machinery remained idle throughout the year, the condition for depreciation was not met and the allowance was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:11:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1935 (7) TMI 21 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173955</link>
      <description>Depreciation under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 required actual user of the buildings, machinery, plant and furniture during the relevant year. Mere maintenance of the assets for business, or their availability for use, did not satisfy the statutory phrase &quot;used for the purposes of the business&quot;. Because the factory and machinery remained idle throughout the year, the condition for depreciation was not met and the allowance was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>