<?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 (12) TMI 122 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268818</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the lower depreciation rates for clean rooms and related installations, classifying them as building and furniture expenses rather than plant and machinery additions. The tribunal found the exclusion of buildings and furniture from the definition of plant post-amendment to be clear and unambiguous, rejecting the assessee&#039;s argument for higher depreciation rates. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower depreciation rates for buildings and furniture.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2015 09:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 122 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268818</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the lower depreciation rates for clean rooms and related installations, classifying them as building and furniture expenses rather than plant and machinery additions. The tribunal found the exclusion of buildings and furniture from the definition of plant post-amendment to be clear and unambiguous, rejecting the assessee&#039;s argument for higher depreciation rates. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower depreciation rates for buildings and furniture.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>