<?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 (12) TMI 345 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335700</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act is only applicable to assets used for business or profession, not for charitable purposes. Even if the cost of the asset was treated as an application of income, claiming depreciation would amount to double deduction. As the assessee was not engaged in business, they were not eligible for depreciation. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2016 18:31:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 345 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335700</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act is only applicable to assets used for business or profession, not for charitable purposes. Even if the cost of the asset was treated as an application of income, claiming depreciation would amount to double deduction. As the assessee was not engaged in business, they were not eligible for depreciation. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>