<?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 (5) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7473</link>
    <description>Extra shift depreciation for a seasonal factory must be computed proportionately by reference to the actual days on which double or triple shift working occurred, because the statutory note under the depreciation rules requires apportionment on the basis of 300 normal working days. The seasonal factory proviso for normal depreciation does not enlarge the extra shift allowance, so the higher claim was rejected. A contribution made towards road development was treated as capital expenditure, since it helped create a new road network giving the business an enduring advantage and was not mere repair or maintenance of an existing road; the deduction was therefore disallowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46523" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (5) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7473</link>
      <description>Extra shift depreciation for a seasonal factory must be computed proportionately by reference to the actual days on which double or triple shift working occurred, because the statutory note under the depreciation rules requires apportionment on the basis of 300 normal working days. The seasonal factory proviso for normal depreciation does not enlarge the extra shift allowance, so the higher claim was rejected. A contribution made towards road development was treated as capital expenditure, since it helped create a new road network giving the business an enduring advantage and was not mere repair or maintenance of an existing road; the deduction was therefore disallowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 May 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>