<?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>2016 (7) TMI 710 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330112</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow depreciation under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, finding no double claim of capital expenditure. The 2012 amendment was deemed prospective from 01.04.2015, as clarified by legislative history and tax authorities. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2016 13:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 710 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330112</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow depreciation under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, finding no double claim of capital expenditure. The 2012 amendment was deemed prospective from 01.04.2015, as clarified by legislative history and tax authorities. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>