<?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>1968 (4) TMI 13 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7342</link>
    <description>Development rebate on machinery or plant is available only when the asset is new, installed after the relevant date, and wholly used for the assessee&#039;s business. In this commentary, an air-conditioning plant in a building partly let out to tenants was treated as failing that test because income from the let-out portion was characterised as property income, not business income, under the Income-tax Act. The strict wording of the taxing provision was applied, so the fact that the plant served the whole premises or that the non-business use was small did not satisfy the condition. De minimis and substantial compliance were held inapplicable to relax the statutory requirement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (4) TMI 13 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7342</link>
      <description>Development rebate on machinery or plant is available only when the asset is new, installed after the relevant date, and wholly used for the assessee&#039;s business. In this commentary, an air-conditioning plant in a building partly let out to tenants was treated as failing that test because income from the let-out portion was characterised as property income, not business income, under the Income-tax Act. The strict wording of the taxing provision was applied, so the fact that the plant served the whole premises or that the non-business use was small did not satisfy the condition. De minimis and substantial compliance were held inapplicable to relax the statutory requirement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>