<?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 (11) TMI 1299 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335281</link>
    <description>The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of the assessee regarding the disallowance of additional depreciation claimed under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The tribunal held that the balance 50% of additional depreciation not claimed in the year of acquisition should be allowed in the succeeding year, in line with legislative intent and judicial precedents. The decision emphasized interpreting provisions liberally to encourage industrial growth, citing the Finance Act, 2015 amendment as supporting the allowance of balance depreciation. The order of the authorities below was set aside, and the claim for additional depreciation was directed to be permitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:55:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449919" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1299 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335281</link>
      <description>The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of the assessee regarding the disallowance of additional depreciation claimed under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The tribunal held that the balance 50% of additional depreciation not claimed in the year of acquisition should be allowed in the succeeding year, in line with legislative intent and judicial precedents. The decision emphasized interpreting provisions liberally to encourage industrial growth, citing the Finance Act, 2015 amendment as supporting the allowance of balance depreciation. The order of the authorities below was set aside, and the claim for additional depreciation was directed to be permitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335281</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>