<?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 (8) TMI 421 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331037</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals) decision to allow the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against deemed income and to delete the addition under section 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal emphasized the applicability of legal precedents and the lack of evidence linking borrowed funds to the construction of the building, ultimately dismissing the revenue&#039;s appeal on both grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2016 14:39:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438005" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 421 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331037</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals) decision to allow the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against deemed income and to delete the addition under section 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal emphasized the applicability of legal precedents and the lack of evidence linking borrowed funds to the construction of the building, ultimately dismissing the revenue&#039;s appeal on both grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>