<?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>2003 (6) TMI 465 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176227</link>
    <description>Share application/share capital addition was held unsustainable where the assessee furnished confirmation, the creditor&#039;s identity was not in dispute, and summons of the creditor had been sought, showing discharge of the primary burden. Electric installations used in manufacturing were treated as plant and machinery under the functional test, so higher depreciation was allowed. Depreciation on pre-operative expenses was rejected because no nexus with acquisition or creation of a capital asset was shown. The question of 100% depreciation on small plant items was remitted for fresh verification of individual costs and bills. Investment allowance on the specified machinery was allowed as the items were used as business plant and the statutory conditions were satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:00:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=409433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 465 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176227</link>
      <description>Share application/share capital addition was held unsustainable where the assessee furnished confirmation, the creditor&#039;s identity was not in dispute, and summons of the creditor had been sought, showing discharge of the primary burden. Electric installations used in manufacturing were treated as plant and machinery under the functional test, so higher depreciation was allowed. Depreciation on pre-operative expenses was rejected because no nexus with acquisition or creation of a capital asset was shown. The question of 100% depreciation on small plant items was remitted for fresh verification of individual costs and bills. Investment allowance on the specified machinery was allowed as the items were used as business plant and the statutory conditions were satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176227</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>