<?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>2013 (10) TMI 1459 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191983</link>
    <description>Expenditure on acquiring application software was treated as capital in nature because the depreciation schedule specifically places computer software within the capital asset framework, so it could not be claimed as revenue expenditure. Expenditure on reconstructing a compound wall after demolition for road-widening was held to be revenue, as it merely preserved and protected the existing property without creating a new asset or enduring advantage. The provision for the Sheraton Preferred Guest Scheme required factual verification of payments, reversals, and later-year tax treatment before it could be accepted as an ascertained liability, so the matter was remitted for inquiry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2024 11:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467752" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1459 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191983</link>
      <description>Expenditure on acquiring application software was treated as capital in nature because the depreciation schedule specifically places computer software within the capital asset framework, so it could not be claimed as revenue expenditure. Expenditure on reconstructing a compound wall after demolition for road-widening was held to be revenue, as it merely preserved and protected the existing property without creating a new asset or enduring advantage. The provision for the Sheraton Preferred Guest Scheme required factual verification of payments, reversals, and later-year tax treatment before it could be accepted as an ascertained liability, so the matter was remitted for inquiry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>