<?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>2017 (1) TMI 1333 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338253</link>
    <description>Higher depreciation for road-construction equipment depended on whether a JCB excavator, motor grader and soil compactor used exclusively in road work could be treated as commercial vehicles under the depreciation schedule. The Tribunal noted conflicting judicial views: some authorities treated such machinery as plant and machinery eligible only for the normal rate, while others treated it as motor lorries or commercial vehicles for tax depreciation purposes. Applying the interpretive rule that a view favourable to the assessee should be adopted where two views are possible, it preferred the higher-depreciation interpretation and allowed depreciation at 50% on the equipment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=456717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1333 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338253</link>
      <description>Higher depreciation for road-construction equipment depended on whether a JCB excavator, motor grader and soil compactor used exclusively in road work could be treated as commercial vehicles under the depreciation schedule. The Tribunal noted conflicting judicial views: some authorities treated such machinery as plant and machinery eligible only for the normal rate, while others treated it as motor lorries or commercial vehicles for tax depreciation purposes. Applying the interpretive rule that a view favourable to the assessee should be adopted where two views are possible, it preferred the higher-depreciation interpretation and allowed depreciation at 50% on the equipment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338253</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>