<?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>2003 (4) TMI 4 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6132</link>
    <description>A cinema theatre is treated as premises, not as plant, for depreciation and extra shift allowance under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Applying the controlling rule in Anand Theatres, the Court held that the theatre did not fall within the meaning of plant under sections 32, 43(3) and 33, so the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation or extra shift allowance on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 4 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6132</link>
      <description>A cinema theatre is treated as premises, not as plant, for depreciation and extra shift allowance under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Applying the controlling rule in Anand Theatres, the Court held that the theatre did not fall within the meaning of plant under sections 32, 43(3) and 33, so the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation or extra shift allowance on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>