<?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>2007 (3) TMI 197 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4036</link>
    <description>The court held that excise duty and sales tax should not be included in turnover for deduction under section 80 HHC. Conversion charges were excluded from turnover. Expenditure on replacement of machinery was classified as revenue expenditure. The block of assets concept was interpreted, considering the replaced machinery as part of a common unit. As no substantial legal questions were found, all appeals related to these issues were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43383" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 197 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4036</link>
      <description>The court held that excise duty and sales tax should not be included in turnover for deduction under section 80 HHC. Conversion charges were excluded from turnover. Expenditure on replacement of machinery was classified as revenue expenditure. The block of assets concept was interpreted, considering the replaced machinery as part of a common unit. As no substantial legal questions were found, all appeals related to these issues were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4036</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>